Randolph A very interesting discussion on Slashdot has ensued after last week's debacle around a string of hex numbers (which I posted as well in the interest of free speech).
What it boils down to is this: surely in the true sense of the word, copyright should protect expressions of ideas that are human readable, and not something that has never been published? For instance, ShutOff 2000 (written by me) in its current form as a binary executable file should not be copyrighted. Rather, the source code that I used to write it should be the copyrightable material.
Another argument votes for copyright periods to be reduced to anything from 5 to 20 years, as opposed to the current 50 years, or life plus 70 years (business and personal copyright respectively). I think in terms of software, this is probably a good idea. Microsoft, IBM, Sun and various other commercial endeavours are rich because of copyright law protecting them way past the sell-by date of a product.
It is an interesting point of view, certainly. Linux (amongst others) is protected by the GPL, which is creating the illusion of a "free" product, where intellectual property is recognised, but the work can be built on without recrimination.
All arguments either for or against copyright and the associated laws (DMCA, patent law, etc.), revolve around one thing: money. Thanks to thousands of years of brainwashing, money is the single driving factor when it comes to wanting to protect something. I sell ShutOff 2000 because I want some sort of payment for my efforts. Microsoft feels the same way on a much bigger scale. Google takes money from you and gives it to me, and takes a cut off the top to keep the ball rolling.
It's all about the money, and to a greater extent, greed. We all have to eat and sleep – some of us just prefer to shop at Woolworths and put our groceries in the back of a BMW. That's life.