IP laws, a good idea gone bad
Thought I'd add my two cents on IP laws, and the changes I think need to be made.
First, I'll explain a couple things about copyrights. I'm not a lawyer, but as a musician I've looked into this. There are a lot of misconceptions about how they work. For instance, the US government does not grant copyrights, it registers and recognizes them. When I write a song I own a copyright to it as soon as I perform it in front of other people, or record it - no government action is needed for me to create and own that copyright. If someone else records, plays a recording, or performs publicly my song I can sue them. Of course, I have to prove it belongs to me. That's why I register my copyright with the government, to provide court admissable evidence that I am the creator of that song. The same applies to written works, video, and other works of art. Patents are a little different, but not much. The USPTO (where you get patents, and register copyrights, etc,) does not check to see if there is prior art or any other reason to invalidate my copyright. Anyone with a problem can sue me, and the court will decide if my patent or copyright is valid.
There are several problems with the current laws regarding IP, and I'll list a few of them.
IP is considered "intangible" property and is not taxable the way land and equipment are. A company can own billions of dollars worth of IP and not pay a dime in property tax for it. I think IP should be subject to property tax, it will solve the problem of companies who exist only to hold IP rights for everything they can think of and whose only source of revenue is sueing people who infringe. It will also lower costs to companies who currently hold a lot of "defensive" patents. For instance, Microsoft hold a patent on the double click. This patent would fail in court due to prior art so MS has no intention of sueing anyone - they got the patent to prevent someone else from trying to sue them (and save themselves the court costs and inconvienience).
Copyrights originally lasted 20 years. This is plenty of time for the creator and publishing company to make a fair profit. If they don't it's because the work, or the business model, isn't good enough. After that 20 years the material enters the public domain. In fact, one of the reasons the patent and copyright laws were first enacted was to ensure that the material would be made available to the public domain, while ensuring a financial incentive to artists so they would create the works in the first place. Copyrights now last just about forever, and this defeats the purpose of what copyrights were intended to do. There's no good reason that Micky Mouse should still be owned by Disney, they've had more than enough time to profit under an exclusive license.
Fair use is being denied. Sony vs MGM (IIRC) estabished the right to Fair Use. The record companies and movie studios are very specific about saying that when you purchase a CD or movie you are paying for a license to the contents, not the media it comes on. If that's truly the case, I should be able to make back-up copies for my own use instead of having to re-purchase the disc. I should be able to play it on any device (DRM usually violates Fair Use). I'm primarily a Linux user, and since no "official" CSS descrambler exists for Linux I have to violate the DMCA by using de-CSS if I want to watch a legally purchased DVD. That's just wrong - I paid for the license, the right to watch that movie.
Don't count on things getting better under Obama. He's got many bigger issues to concern him, so this my be left up to his Vice President. VP-elect Joe Biden has a long history of catering to the RIAA and MPAA (and is also against any enforcing of net neutrality).
I'm not trying to say that filesharing is good, or right, or moral. But it's not always as evil as the RIAA makes it seem. Record sales went up quite a bit when Napster hit the scene, and dropped of when it was shut down. People like to try before they buy. Metallica owes it's fame and fortune to primative file sharing via snail mail. Some one would see them, like it, and buy a cassette. Then they would mail copies to friends in other towns and states giving Metallica exposure in areas they wouldn't have otherwise since they couldn't get air time on the radio, and their minor label didn't have the money for a large nationwide ad campaign. That increased fan base, spread out across the country, is what attracted the attention of MTV and the major labels. Sadly, Metallica seems to have forgotten where they came from, how they got to where they are, and now support the RIAA and whine about piracy. Biting the hands that fed them.
Radiohead has taken a new approach by making their music available for free. It's not shared as often on the filesharing networks since you can get it legally for free from Radiohead's website. That means more visits to the website and dramatically increased merchandise marketing opportunities. It's never been easy for an artist to make money on album sales. The label, producer, engineer, etc, each get much larger cuts than the band does. Touring has become so expensive it's hard to make any money without charging outrageous prices (and thus reducing attendance). Bands can make far more money on T-Shirts than they can on music, and Radiohead has given people a reason to come to their website and maybe buy something while they download the music for free.
If you really want to see a viable business model for selling content online, check out the way the porno companies do it. They've always been early adopters. Jumped onto selling videotapes while the mainstream studios were saying there's no money in it. Same thing with the internet. MGM can't figure out how to make money on downloaded content, but the porno companies are getting fat from it.
Again, that's not to encourage people to fileshare. The content creator should have the right to use the distribution model of their choice.
Orbiter would be silent if Dan couldn't make a living from FSPassengers. If he had to have a full time job to support himself he wouldn't have had the time to create Orbitsound, UMMU, and the DG-IV, and give them to us for free.
In summary - IP rights are essential, but the laws governing them are counter productive, ineffective, and now harm the general public they were created to protect.
