Perhaps we should give them what they really want: all music ever written, played, recorded, hummed, whistled, thought of, or conjured by the will of Mad Max may only be enjoyed by individual persons in special auditory isolation chambers; only registered "content producers" can participate in "content" synthesis; any gross acts of domestic auditory terrorism, or "violations," with respect to the sampling of said "content" will result in a binding contract of servitude under the discretion of the "content producers" for the natural life of the violator plus one day; and, finally, only current "content producers" may designate another person as allowed to become a "content producer."
Quite frankly, that the cognitive dissonance of making any and every physical expression of human activity a copyrighted asset while maintaining the stance that said actions of the whole of human kind may never be derivative without some kind of permissions transaction has been allowed to fester this long is asinine. It's amazing we've managed to MAFIAA things up so badly.
I agree in that capital gains should be treated no differently than any other income source. Regarding my ire for Warren Buffet, the IRS will happily accept a check. Actions speak louder than words and so far that is all that is proffered: useless rhetoric.
This is exactly why I think Warren Buffet, as any person who would preach his stupidity from such a position of wealth, is a duplicitous jackass. The whole conflation of personal holdings with the rate of income in the political debate over taxation as a solution to "income inequality" only seems to serve those who want to feel good about getting nothing accomplished.
Someone just needs to at least introduce, if not pass, the Substantially Obscure Provisions Act. It could be as simple as defining the order of paring spots outside the capitol building (for America / terrorism / the children / national security / etc.). That way they have to say the whole damn name every time they feel like pulling some stupid idea from the PIPS's evil cousin. Hopefully that will fill their heads with too many copies of the wrong message and ruin either the content of the new legislation (if they bother writing anything) or their chances of being re-elected (gotcha moments a plenty with such a loaded title).
I'm starting to think that the easiest way to get rid of these bad ideas is to consume as many cheap acronyms and phrases as possible with routine, simple legislation (they'll love how grandiose it makes them sound) so that they are stuck admitting to a representation of the actual content in the title of proposed legislation.
Then again, the L.I.E.T.O.M.E.M.O.R.E. Act might be par for the course.
Don't forget, the paywalls for academic and scientific journals revolve around the old idea of time spent in the basement of some collegiate library. "Access" typically constitutes a 24 hour window to read a pdf, which incidentally is why I always recommend to students that they violate the terms of the agreement and just save the pdf so they can go back and read it later. The insanity is that the license has no problem with printing the document, just with saving or otherwise copying the digital form. Also, unless you happen to be fortunate enough to be on an academic network that 24 hours of "access" usually costs around $30.
None of the costs of actually producing the content are paid by the journals. In fact, the journals (thankfully) do a good job rejecting the majority of content submitted. But let's not forget, the reviewers do that work as well. The journals only foot the hosting costs, as many of them are no longer available in print do to the economy of scale online-only allows. The MAFIAA dream about a deal like that.