Perhaps I learned a different language from Pallante, but that's hardly "limited."
It is *very* limited. It includes no language that permits armed military response or tactical nukes. In fact if any content owner took those steps it would be frowned upon and and could possible (but not definately) have serious consequences like a fine or something.
These "businesses" need to adapt and stop relying on a bad business model
Hey, you can't just say 'you need to adapt' without explaining how to do that! :p
BTW, you are speaking about technology companies that have done nothing but adapt. And those that don't? They shrivel up and die. Even big ones.
And the media companies? They are still trying to shove shiny plastic discs down my throat, and can't comprehend why I'm not thrilled to be buying them. Must be the pirates fault! Pass some laws! Quick! It certainly can't be that physical media is dying. And the sooner the better.
I don't think this author is very progressive in his thinking. From the article: Amazon also offers a 70 percent royalty option for books over $2.99, but Crawford chose the lower royalty (35%) “because you can opt out of Kindle Lending"
This is a guy who would rather make half as much money on each sale rather than let someone who bought the book 'lend' it to someone else. I very much doubt he is going to see this as an opportunity or advertising.
You might think that, if you believed that copyright wasn't completely broken. However, people get sued for the ideas all the time. Like this.
I really think you are relying on semantics. The idea/expression dichotomy expressed in copyright law means ideas in a totally abstract way. The censorship of copyright is applied to ideas that have been expressed.
The system limits the dissemination of the expression of ideas. Tell me that's wrong.