Great overview, but you forgot the player piano. Under copyright laws in the 1800s they were perfectly legal and attempts to ban them or collect licenses from them failed. Back then, only published sheet music was protected and player piano scrolls were not considered publications.
After lawsuits failed, Congress changed copyright law to make unauthorized performance illegal. And now syncing music to video without authorization is illegal, even if you have the individual rights to both. Great job Congress!
There are two problems with healthcare. First, capitalism/a free market depends on consumers making rational choices. There is no choice in relation to healthcare other than to choose to live. You can only say "no" to having your broken leg fixed for so long.
Second, third parties are paying for it, so there's little oversight in keeping prices in check. If we had to pay for each item on a medical bill, we'd complain. There would be rioting. But because someone else is paying, we just shrug and pass it on.
A federal anti-SLAPP law would be the WORST idea ever. When was the last time the feds ever passed pro-citizen/consumer legislation that was not watered down and written by large corporate special interests?!
Here's what would happen, the feds would enact an anti-SLAPP law that would offer no real protections. It would also eliminate all state anti-SLAPP laws (much in the same way states cannot enact their own legislation to get around mandatory arbitration clauses). Accordingly, we'd end up with LESS protection than we have now.
Copyright is already like a tax, it's only a matter of time before it actually becomes a tax.
Instead of "selling" music and movies, we'll all have to pay a percentage of our income to the Copyright Bureau, regardless of whether we consume any copyright. Anyone not paying will be face jail time. Obviously the copyright industries will have no incentive at all to create, because they'll get paid regardless. And of course any work of art, music, theater, movie, etc, will automatically be "owned" by the Copyright Bureau in perpetuity. Because any attempt to sidestep the official Copyright Bureau would be considered theft and infringement.
It'd make great speculative fiction, but I'd hate to be the person to write their game plan.
"Disney -- the poster company for supporting extreme copyright monopolies -- has apparently discovered a form of intellectual monopoly that it doesn't like so much: patents"
Which is why I don't like the term "copyright maximalists." Copyright is merely a means to an end. The end is protection. Thus, they should be called middlemen protectionists.
In other words, Disney doesn't give a frick about intellectual property and will fight against it tooth and nail, unless intellectual property protects it and only it. Then they'll fight for it tooth and nail.
If you look through the history of recorded music, sales have always increased when new technology allows more people to listen.
When radio first was released, the masses were able to hear and buy music for the first time.
When white kids started listening to black music on powerful AM stations in the 50, the birth of rock and roll led to decades of sales.
When college kids started listening to experimental rock on FM radio in the late 60s and 70s, sales increased until the end of the 70s. (And of course the higher quality of FM led to a broad range of music being exposed.)
MTV started playing new music in the 80s and sales increased until they stopped playing videos in the mid 90s. MTV exposed kids to metal, new wave, and rap. And made Micheal Jackson a mega star.
CD actually increased with Napster giving exposure to new music, but it was fleeting.
Since then any new technology which is released to give exposure to new artists is immediately killed. And yet they wonder why sales aren't what they used to be.
I'm of the opinion that the massive economic growth we experienced in the 90s derived from the fact that the net/web and software were not heavily patented. Anyone was free to start up a web based business or write and sell software without the fear of being sued into bankruptcy. And they did.
Now you can't do anything online or produce software without violating someone's patent. You're better off buying up a bunch of old patents and suing true innovators in Texas.