That's one of my problems with his argument. The author seems to think he has a fundamental right to access the produce of media companies... but only on terms he finds reasonable, of course.
As you say, rights are often malleable - and reevaluating and redefining them (from both sides of this debate) should be an ongoing process.
The way I see it is that the author is using this blog post to fight for what he believes are his rights, and the businesses are fighting for what they believe are their rights. Philosophical/Moral arguments aside, this war will be won by whoever is louder/more influential.
Absolutely, but the counter argument is that the conclusion of that debate is expressed by the law, which is supposed to be the will of the people.
You could of course make the case that our democracy is too imperfect to accept the letter of any particular law as a direct expression of the will of the people without applying your further judgement.
Laws can be inconsistent, unjust or inappropriately applied and that's why we have the courts to make those judgements. Unfortunately, access to the courts is very unequal, particularly in the case of civil law. It's always been like this, hence breaking the law has always been the poor man's expensive lawyer and lobbyist at the same time.
Of course this argument could be used as a blanket excuse for breaking any law. Personal judgement just can't be replaced by any system.
People's rights are man made, so they are debatable.