Agree. But the solution won't come from private capital either. Both sides, government and corporation have proved and proved time and time again that they are not in it for the best interests of people.
If anything, true solutions and true information and critique will come from ORGANIZED CIVIL SOCIETY.
Ah yes, the old: "if you don't like the price, don't buy it"... has never worked. Say that in regards to food, transportation, medicine/health, clothing, and so many other basic and secondary goods/services to half of the world population which is poor and cannot afford. Utter ridiculous non-sense.
Now this "if you don't like the internet then don't use it" like this dude is barfing if so full of itself, especially in the 21st century, the era of information.
First, the correct phrase would be "if you don't like the internet how we are trying it to be for the profit of a few then don't use it"...that would be a bit less misleading.
Second, free access to information IS a universal human right. Right to privacy is a universal human right. So he does not have a say on how the internet should be, or should we use it or not, it is a universal human right, above him and his party, his interest buddies and even above the American constitution.
What an idiotic person, so archaic. If we all thought like him, we would all be back in the stone age.
He claims that if the internet was regulated as a utility then there would be no internet at all, but that is just his very biased opinion (obviously) with no proof or data to support such ridiculous claim.
Electricity, water, etc are all considered utilities and they are still here, then why not the internet?
Even more so, this copyright scheme is a great generator of inequality. A substantial amount of the benefit and profit of copyright and patent goes to mainly American companies and American individuals, leaving the rest of the world to just become sweat shops and manufacturing plants to mass produce all those products and services based on an "original" idea or "invention" or "patent" owned by an American company or individual.
Just take the iPhone for example, most of the parts are manufactured elsewhere but who rips the most profit by far? Yes, those American company (Apple) and Individuals (Tim Cook and such) who "own" the patent, the original idea, the design, etc, etc, etc. While the real work, the real time- consuming, hard ans sweating, low-paying jobs are done by thousands overseas.
Well, isn't that what those "contests" are for really? To attract talent, let them spit out their best lines, then steal I mean appropriate all that information and use them in future campaigns and lobbying. Getting the job done and for free.
Too much importance is being put on the gatekeepers, the middlemen or such. But lets not forget that the problem (too) is the source, the production houses, the copyright "owners" or holders, the authors or "creators" who expect ridiculous amount of money and in eternal fashion (rents) for the same unit of work, the same unit of effort invested, the same unit of time invested aka a movie, an album/song, a book, a software, a game, etc.
Many times middlemen, such as Netflix, cannot give lower prices and better service (as no geoblocking) BECAUSE of the terms imposed by the production studios. We do not need copyright reform, we need copyright extinction.
Not true. The purpose is to first and foremost provide a benefit or service to society. There are many NGOs for example.
And more lies (maybe not intentionally but as product of ignorance as OA points out - which sometimes is even worse), the best way to make money is with a monopoly, or stealing it, or by invading other countries and taking their resources (hello USA & war).