Andrew C. Greenberg <werdna at mucow.com> said:
>Its not hard to accomplish, actually -- we've been successful as a 
>nation in balancing those interests adequately for 200 years despite 
>many radical changes in the nature of technology and copyright subject 
>matter.  Only recently (and not because of the "innovation" of digital 
>information) has this become a problem -- precisely because Congress got 
>involved.
>
I do think that lots of people watching the sad state of affairs in the
entertainment industry would argue that one of the reasons this industry is so
imbalanced is the fact that IP laws have been failing for a longer time. Also,
small companies have problems competing against the patent-hoarding
multinationals, especially in high-tech environments like ICT. If small
companies violate a patent, they're gone (or, if the company is interesting
enough, the patent violation is bought off with a fat chunk of ownership). Big
companies often have mutual patent sharing agreements in place that protects
them from painful mistakes. 

So, even without high tech in place, I think that IP law benefits large
companies more than small inventors, which is bad for competition, free flow
of information, etcetera. So my (political) conclusion is that it hurts more
than it benefits, ergo: do away with it. 

-- 
Cees de Groot               http://www.cdegroot.com     <cg at cdegroot.com>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD  1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B
http://www.anti-dmca.org/