[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I agree wholeheartedly that copyright (and patent) law has not kept pace with the rapid changes that the digital era has brought about, and in some cases, may even be doing more harm than good.

Here's where we substantially disagree: I do not consider the above statement to mean that "copyright is dying," or that it has no place in the modern world. In fact, copyright is a modern and advanced concept, specifically designed to deal with a world where people's works can be practically copied and used by others, to make certain the original creator receives proper compensation for their works. It wasn't needed prior to Gutenberg and mass production, as it was not practical to copy others' works prior to that. But the need for that protection stands today, and it will until the day when all people have everything they could ever want, and need work for a living no more.

Yes, copyright as a concept is not performing as well as it should (and understanding that many of the "complaints" regarding copyright are specifically from people who simply want it to go away, so they can get what they want for free... needless to say, I don't consider those "complaints" to have much validity). That is a clear sign that the concept needs to be reworked, modernized to fit the modern age and society's existing (and evolving) needs. Considering digital products to be "insubstantial," "unreal," or "valueless" is simply being unrealistic... it's "Santa Claus" economics, believing that if you're good (or sneaky) and you wish hard enough, you'll get everything you want.

The rise of the computer in business has ably demonstrated the value of digital goods, to the extent that anyone who denies that value is being purposely obtuse. Creative digital works have as much value as creative works on paper, celluloid, clay or bronze, and they deserve the same protections. The fact that those protections aren't easy, is not enough of a reason not to find a way to set them.

Maybe the concept of copyright needs to be seriously reworked, to the point where what we have no longer resembles the idea of copyright as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but has evolved into a very different concept or mode of execution of its fundamental intent. It makes sense... the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned digital products. Fortunately, they did understand that they could not possibly anticipate the needs of future generations, which is why they created a system that could evolve with the changing times.

What is the alternative? Abolishing copyright will make it so difficult for creators to get fair or appropriate compensation for their efforts, that they simply will not create, and society will be bereft of their talents and products. It is a historical fact that the present copyright and patent system has served to spur invention and development of products and creative works, just as it was intended. Sure, some things will still be created by individuals who feel the need to create, whatever the cost (or loss) to them. But it will not be accomplished as fast as it has been in the past, and some things may never be created at all, without the support of copyright and patent systems. I maintain that we, as a society, would not be better off in that case.

So, back to the issue: I see the EU's actions as the first step to bringing copyright law into the 21st century (which is more than I can say for the U.S.), reworking it to encompass the digital goods that were simply unheard-of when the concept of copyright was created. In time, that should (theoretically) result in a copyright and patent system that is agreeable to everyone, everywhere (with the exception of those who want everything for free).