Yes, just about every measure goes into the right direction. However, the real problems aren't tackled at all.
a) Patents on mathematics. It's still possible to patent mathematical algorithms, called "software" to muddle the case. These are completely illegal already BUT the patent office and patent lawyers have defined pi=3 to justify them. In other words: The mathematical (and computer science) definition of algorithm is totally different than that of lawyers, courts and the patent office. And the lawyers, courts and patent office just don't get it that their definition is wrong unscientific bogus. Somebody would need to fix that, even if it would mean to insert a definition that "software is mathematics" into law. *sigh*
b) patents on things were prior art is provided by nature, or by somebody else who didn't patent it. This includes a lot of patents on gene-sequences. While it may take a lot of work to re-create bacterial DNA sequences, these very same sequences already exist in the bacteria, and are therefore in no way novel. Patent offices neither check whether something already exists in nature, nor whether something was used or published long time ago, but not subject to any patent. This leads to (apart from being an illegal patent on mathematics anyway) absurd things like "slide to unlock", which happens to be invented in the bronze age (are maybe even the stone age): http://seegras.ch/patents-on-bronze-age-technology/ This issue is rather more difficult to fix than the mathematics one.
There's some more issues, like the lumping of trademarks, copyrights and patents together, and ending up with bans on imports of technology which /might/ violate patents, but which were meant to be used against counterfeit (=violating trademarks) goods.
And of course this is also not conclusive, looming in the back is the big question itself: Is it worth all the effort and wasted energy only to grant _monopolies_?
Because, as the Economist already noted in 1851: "the granting patents “inflames cupidity,” excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits, bestows rewards on the wrong persons, makes men ruin themselves for the sake of getting the privileges of a patent. Patents are like lotteries, in which there are a few prizes and a great many blanks. Comprehensive patents are taken out by some parties, for the purpose of stopping inventions, or appropriating the fruits of the inventions of others, &c. Such Consequences, more resembling the smuggling and fraud caused by an ill-advised tax than anything else, cause a strong suspicion. that the principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just."
And actually, that is the final word about the patent system. That abomination needs to be abolished, as it should have been in 1851 already.
I presume you wanted to say "Fuck Washington and fuck Jefferson" as well. And especially "Fuck Benjamin Franklin", because he was the one publishing all those stories about the British abusing their power?
In a Democracy, "We the People" are the topmost ruler. And somebody leaking government secrets to the People can not be a traitor.
Yes, some adversaries of the People now know the secrets too, but that still does not mean the whistleblower is a traitor.
Yes, it's very common and well-known that museums claim copyrights where they haven't any.
For instance, any reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art for which copyright has expired CAN NOT be placed under copyright again. So you're free to scan museum postcards or catalogues and publish them again. You can't put a license on them, because they're public domain anyway.
It's different with three-dimensional works of art, where light, angle, focus and so on play a role. This means, a photograph of say, a piece of armour, can underlie copyright. Not the armour, but the photograph of it, because it can constitute a work of art itself.
Any museum trying to restrict photography on the basis of copyright can only do this for modern works (but doesn't even have to -- the work is on public display, and unless the photographer publishes his picture, no copyright violation has taken place), but not ever for anything which does not underlie copyright (anymore).
They can however, restrict photography however they want, on the basis of householders right. If you violate that, they can throw you out. But they don't have any right to a) search your camera, b) make you delete your pictures, c) call the police (unless you refuse to leave) to obtain a or b. And in case you've photographed a three-dimensional work, your picture probably even underlies copyright, and deleting it would be a destruction of your copyrighted work... ;)
.. and your nation. In which case your gouvernment (were it any good) would promptly replace those people on ground of endangering national security.
I mean, private people can advocate anything, but if they're officials, proposing ideas like this in an official role at least warrants immediate dismissal, if not an investigation for high treason (trying to subvert national security etc...).
Re: "reasonably monetize what might be considered infringement under the law"
Actually, no. And no again.
Fan Fiction is NOT, and CAN NOT be copyright infringement, because there is nothing copied at all.
US: "102 (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
Copyright is about the exact form, and not about an "idea" or a "concept".
The use of characters and settings developed by others MIGHT constitute trademark infringement (if named the same), but most literary characters are not even trademarked.