More to the point, if you're going to have it, how are you going to enforce it on the Internet? The number of ways in which a high-quality digital copy of a potentially copyrighted work is nearly infinite. Some of them are legitimate: reading a properly licensed file into memory in order to consume it. Some are clearly not legitimate, and others fall into a gray area.
The practical ease with which copyright may be violated is in itself an argument against its rigid enforcement. Without a pervasive technical infrastructure the question of, "Can I copy these bits?" is essentially unanswerable. The duration of copyright is not nearly as large of a problem as enforcement -- the current system doesn't seem to work too well. To a first approximation, there is no such thing as copyright of a digital work. So why should that change, and how do you plan to do that?
The practical ease with which laws against murder may be violated is in itself an argument against its rigid enforcement.
If you have a problem with copyright in and of itself, make a case based on that. The logical conclusion of your argument as it stands, however, is "laws may be violated so we should have no laws".
Let us consider a world where all copyrights were enforced to the letter in every instance. This is a world mostly imprisoned, or ruined by debt.
Let us further consider a world where 10% of all copyrights were enforced. The world may be less incarcerated, but I doubt it. The world we inhabit has in all likelihood an enforcement rate of less than one in one billion, and violators include most of the population.
You have made a logical error in oversimplifying the argument at hand. Either extreme of enforcement is absurd. It is to no one's benefit to have laws which may be routinely violated, often unknowingly, by the overwhelming majority of the population. That being the case with copyright means not that people are a problem, or the technology is doing something other than what it was built for, but that we are trying to criminalize something that is fundamental to the functions of both.
You may well argue for the necessity of law, but please instead argue for the necessity of this law. It is abundantly clear that the law as written is as effective as criminalizing flatulence, or the encroaching tide. One hopes that in those events you will not feel called upon to make the same argument.
> Let us consider a world where all copyrights were enforced
> to the letter in every instance. This is a world mostly imprisoned,
> or ruined by debt.
You could say this of virtually any law. Under your construction, the current president of the United States would be in prison on drugs charges, the former president for desertion, and the former president's wife for vehicular homicide.
Law (and its enforcement) are inherently discretionary. Appropriate use of that discretion is key to a well-functioning society.
There is a great deal that's wrong with the present copyright scheme. A rational scheme, with much shorter terms of copyright, very brief corporate assignments (after which terms revert to authors), mandatory registration for copyright extended beyond a de minimus period (3-7 years or so), ample and clear exemptions for various fair use (personal, educational, creative, remix, adaptation), and an escalating fee schedule for additional extensions, would help greatly.
While digital capabilities make copyright violation much easier, they also make detection and correction of significant violations much easier (too easy, according to many).
The topic at hand is a particular law, however. I'm glad that you agree that mindless enforcement is bad. Show that there is a subset of copyright that is practical to enforce on the internet. At the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe that such is practical, and the scale of the violation is easily on par with (e.g.) an attempt to criminalize normal bodily functions.
There is no good outcome when laws are routinely and unknowingly violated. You are ducking the hard questions, and focusing on the legal niceties. You should also make an argument as to why a law that would punish all citizens if fully enforced, should not be considered a bad law.
DMCA takedown notices in the event of an infringement.
For someone attempting major commercial exploitation of copyrighted materials, there's virtually always an entity which can be reached by injunction, subpoena, or legal action.
Filesharing (a noncommercial exploitation of copyrighted works) is harder to track down, but more overt forms of sharing generally can be identified. Remember: both the copyright enforcer and the copyright infringer need to identify and access the infringed work. The same actions which make it harder for the copyright enforcer to identify infringing uses make it harder for infringers to infringe.
Not impossible, but difficult.
There are many cases of plagiarism and content stealing, yes. But for the most part, once detected, these can be shut down. Tracking content theft from a developed country to a less developed one may be difficult (technically and legally), but it's also a relatively small economic loss.
My interpretation of his stance is- "there's not much point having a law if it's technically being violated all the time, and it's exploited by those with power and authority to suit their own ends".
He's not promoting lawlessness, he's recognizing it as the current state of affairs, and suggesting that we address it differently.
Absolutely. In a similar sense,we recognize that privacy is a right which is not enforceable in public, or for celebrities. It's possible that an expectation of privacy on the Internet is also unreasonable. You're not making the point you think you are. Show that copyright may be effectively policed.
More to the point, if you're going to have it, how are you going to enforce it on the Internet? The number of ways in which a high-quality digital copy of a potentially copyrighted work is nearly infinite. Some of them are legitimate: reading a properly licensed file into memory in order to consume it. Some are clearly not legitimate, and others fall into a gray area.
The practical ease with which copyright may be violated is in itself an argument against its rigid enforcement. Without a pervasive technical infrastructure the question of, "Can I copy these bits?" is essentially unanswerable. The duration of copyright is not nearly as large of a problem as enforcement -- the current system doesn't seem to work too well. To a first approximation, there is no such thing as copyright of a digital work. So why should that change, and how do you plan to do that?