Haha, yes, I think you'll find my use of the Eurythmic's riff comes under 'fair use' and I'm not actually infringing copyright by presenting it there. If I was charging for it, then I think I'd have a problem. And if I was giving away the exact digital bits (mechanical copyright) that was owned by the record label, again that would be an issue.
The equivalent of whistling a pop tune is not something people generally get prosecuted for!
This is all catered for in existing copyright laws.
And I don't think Google have copyrighted their image of their synth. And given that I clearly state the originating site and am not profiting from it - or depriving Google income by it's use, I don't think you can hoist me on that petard! (Though if I'm wrong, that would be interesting)
Just because it's difficult to draw a neat line around what is objectionable and what is not (re the image issure you raised of Sam Fox), it doesn't mean that we can't all agree what is wrong and what is right.
A lot of internet people have decided that it is right to take other people's work and share it without the originator's permission. I fundamentally disagree with that stance. Imagine if I pick up an apple for 'free' from the ground and then you take it from me without asking - that is wrong. (The twist with digital files in that I still have a copy of that apple. I think that is irrelevent. The one you have taken still has value, and you have still taken it without asking. If nothing else, it's just rude!).
The spectre of 'states' controlling the internet is another weird thing. I'm pretty sure any freedom loving technologists are always going to work out a way to communicate without the state eavesdropping. I'm sure you'd agree that they're smart enough for that! If a state is a fascist, there are a lot more problems there than banning Twitter.
I'm sure Dan Bull can find other ways of distributing his content - one artist legimately using an illegal site doesn't legitimise that site.
And remember, 'information wants to free' is not the whole quote. I think we would both agree with the full statement:
"Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive. Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy, and recombine - too cheap to meter. It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient. That tension will not go away. It leads to endless wrenching debate about price, copyright, 'intellectual property', the moral rightness of casual distribution, because each round of new devices makes the tension worse, not better."