Do trademark laws know no limitations¹? I wonder whether Professor McLeod would sue a small, non-profit organization were it to make use of his trademark, and furthermore the efficacy of trademarks on such an unruly creature as the internet.
"He acknowledges the irony of trademarking the very phrase that sums up the American commitment to free speech. But²" even professors want their piece. Indeed, "how do we guarantee free thought when the push is to propertize every idea?³" It's only natural that we, from priviledged corporations to "the people", should want to maintain the operational status quo when faced with new, daunting circumstances. Lawrence Lessig, in his "The Future of Ideas" and "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace", worries that that fiber-optic tendoned unicorn will lay down in the lap of Orwellian Government. "Envisioning this impossible world was sport.⁴" This is old psychology; we enjoy being frightened.
Still: to what extent can we liken the internet to the virgin Americas, from the Wordsworthian utopia to the Boston Tea Party?
As to the bevy of net-art (without what will prove to be an endless aesthetic discussion), the relative freedom to reproduce reminds me of ancient artworks, wherein everything was copied ad nauseum (and, really, what's so horrid about that, since the reproduction pays such obvious homage to the original⁵)? Am I unfounded in saying that the issue of musical piracy, beneath its various law-suits and celebrity exclamations, is little more than a greed issue?

1. The "Creative Commons" thingy is a progressive, more tolerant copyright, appealing more to the moral sense than to a fear of punishment, which better befits this "world of the mind" (moreso than is the strictly physical world).
2. www.kembrew.com
3. http://www.code-is-law.org/preface_excerpt.html
4. http://www.code-is-law.org/preface_excerpt.html, I think.
5. I know; money.