The bigger problem is that he seemed to think that it was his right (or obligation) to free other peoples ideas. It is what is known as theft if I choose to free your cattle or sheep or other property.
Theft deprives the owner of physical property. If I steal or "free" your cattle or sheep or other property, you can no longer make use of that property.
If however, I were to somehow make a copy of all your cattle, sheep or other property - while you still retained your original - what have you lost? You can still do with your property as you like.
Or - are you trying to say that just because you came up with some form of ephemeral "information" - that anyone who wants it -must- pay you for it, that you -deserve- payment for it? What if I don't pay you, nor do I take a copy - haven't I just denied you money, and in effect have "stolen" something from you (that is, I didn't give you the money you were entitled for the idea you created)?
That's the nature of information - anything that is infinitely copyable technically has zero value; we only make up these laws and such to give artificial value to something that naturally should have little to no value at all, if left to it's own devices, so to speak.
If you come up with an idea should I have the right to publish it and benefit from it without your permission?
If you did it on my taxpayer-funded dime - well, yeah, I should be able to get a copy of that information for a reasonable fee to cover copying, material, and handling expenses (which, in this day and age, should be essentially free - what with torrents and such; it's not like you -have- to host this stuff on a paid-for server any more, but even then, it should cost as much as it does to get some publications from the government - at one time, when you could only get a paper copy, it was one thing - but today it shouldn't cost much, if anything).
He, like the Occupy Wall Street folk seemed to think that because he wants it a certain way, then all others should submit to his "superior" ideas.
Were you paying attention to anything OWS was saying? Or were you too busy worrying about who was going to be the front-runner for the regressive party?
My personal thought is that this is the end result of a spoiled life that was not taught right from wrong, or respect for others. He broke the law, stole other peoples property and could not accept that he was not the supreme abitter in this situation.
The game wasn't being played by his rules so he took his ball and went home. The ultimate act of a selfish individual.
I sincerely doubt that he committed suicide solely due to any of his legal issues; while I am sure they played somewhat into his demise, likely he was suffering from depression of some sort or another, and eventually it became too much. Surely you're not so heartless as to not to see that possibility?
As part of a society, I either have to work within that societies means for change of be prepared to deal with the results of my refusal to conform.