The classic cyberpunk situation of no government at all other than the 'megacorps' doesn't seem to fit too well.
I actually prefer the model in SLA industries, which is a world in which all of the corporations eventually merged into a single huge one which basically makes everything.
If it's active in a particular country, it can undercut or buy out ANYTHING that country's industry can produce several times over, so if it's there, everyone works for them, and then buys stuff made by them. SLA actually print their own money for countries it is active in. Of course, you can choose to be paid in local currency instead if you choose, but since you're inevitably going to buy from SLA eventually and you'd incur a fee turning it back to SLAbucks there's no point.
There are still governments, too. They say stuff sometimes. But basically they know they have the choice of either having SLA in their country or not. If they hack it off, SLA can just leave, leaving the country to build an entire economic infrastructure from scratch with no ability to trade with any SLA-linked nation (SLA won't stop them, but they'll have nothing to offer that SLA can't offer better). So they effectively have control with the illusion of choice.
That's exactly the same kind of "control" that firms have in the real world, which is why I prefer that model.
In the vast majority of companies, 51% of the shares are held by a single individual or a limited cartel who work together at a lower level, thus rendering meaningless any control granted by the other shares.
Just because companies offer shares doesn't mean they support democracy.
> But that's besides the point because the right > to keep and bear arms is a constitutionaly > protected right. > The right to "infringe on copyright" is not.
But that's not comparing like with like. The right to use your own computer without being spied upon *is* a protected right (although it may not be constitutional).
The right to infringe copyright isn't protected, but neither is the "right" to go around shooting random people in the face.
It is *not* illegal, not even under the DMCA, to break copy protection for the purpose of making fair use, or for work with expired copyrights. The DMCA only makes breaking protection a crime when it's done with intent to break copyright law, and making fair use isn't breaking copyright law.
The *problem* however is that the DMCA still bars the distribution of *tools* for breaking copy protection, no matter what they're used for. So, yes, you *can* break the protection on that CD if it's for a fair purpose, but *only* if you do all the work of doing so yourself. This was why the "making it easy" issue came up.
> Heck, Great Britain doesn't even have a > constitution, so if you'll ever say "buddy, > you violate my constitutional rights" to a > British policeman, you will probably give him > a good laughter.
The UK doesn't have a constitution, but it *does* have habeas corpus; one of the few countries in the UK that does. (Although it's been threatened by some of the laws on terrorism.)
However, it's also had enough stupid cases of home-owners being jailed for assaulting burglars while defending their property that I can't see this being good.
I guess the next step is for the burglar to use a public recording booth to record himself singing "'ere we go" or whatever, take the CD with him when he breaks into someone's house and if he's caught, quickly throw down the CD, claim it was there before, and that he's only entered the house to investigate this unauthorised use of his IP..
> There was a case where a guy scored extremely > high on one of those little tests, and was > therefore not hired. Of course, once his > lawyer was done, he probably didn't need to....
What did he sue for?
AFAIX disability discrimination is illegal but ability discrimination is not.
> THAT'S the problem. Copyright is a good, and > necessary, idea for a capatalistic country.
Yes. But far more of a problem is that copyright law has NOT been updated in ways which are necessary to promote effective capitalism, and HAS been updated in ways which harm it.
For example, no update to copyright law has been made which protects authors from being forced to surrender their copyright in exchange for access to a distribution cartel. This immediately harpoons the "it's to give a profit motive for creating works" angle because typically you have to surrender the copyright to have any change of making any profit. "But the distributors are providing a service!" come the cries. No they're not. They're providing a service that wouldn't be necessary if it wasn't for their own existance, which is a bit like saying the mafia provide a service by not burning down your shopfront.
However, they were QUICK to update copyright law to put legal protection behind copy protection systems, which can clearly be abused: make all playback devices require DRM formats then make the DRM granting systems inaccessible to artists, either by exclusive arrangements or by pricing them too high, thus even FURTHER locking in the distribution system.
Both of these are anticapitalist. Effective capitalism requires a dynamic market where competition is active and reasonable. Neither of these help that.
It's the usual story. Companies demand experience on all posts, and then whine about lack of "qualified" applicants. While ignoring the fact that they themselves are creating a qualification that's impossible to get.
Although he might be right about OSS having poor UIs, it's really getting to the stage where there are so many things in general UI design that are broken that it's becoming ridiculous. Let's see:
[i]Trying to be clever and failing[/i]. The author wanted server autoprobe. Funny, that, it wouldn't be the first time when I've wanted to tear a configuration system to bits because it insisted on using an autoprobe and offering a selection box, when I [i]knew[/i] where the appropriate server/connection was but couldn't select it because the autoprobe wasn't finding it and there was no free entry box. This even got to one stage where I had to manually edit an.INF file to add the connection name. Ok, UI folks, another principle to bear in mind: anything the computer knows may be wrong.
[i]Using the passive voice[/i]. As in "the system is waiting for the Close Programs dialog box to be displayed". Um, excuse me? That's like me sitting in my office saying "I'm waiting for my work to be done". Just as it's my job to do my work, it's "the system"'s job to display the Close Programs dialog box, and it isn't doing it.
[i]Abuse of OK and Cancel[/i]. I should not have to say that an error message is "OK". Unix had this alright with "Dismiss".
[i]Nested OK and Cancel[/i]. Got IE? Tools, Internet Options, Delete Files. Are you sure you want to delete files? OK. Now you're back at the Internet Options screen, but there's still an OK and Cancel button showing. Does clicking Cancel cancel the deletion? Nope. So why is it there? Again, "Apply" and "Dismiss" avoid all of these.
[i]Not saying why things are the case[/i]. Tell me why options are ghosted, tell me why errors occured. I know [i]you[/i] know why, because you just came off the if statement that checked the condition in question.
[i]Confusing information with help[/i]. Information is possibly unrelated facts. Help is directed at progressing the task the user is doing. If you aren't smart enough to figure out how to do that, you can't offer "help", no matter what you name the button.
[i]Non-temporal progress bars[/i]. The progress bar should show the % of time left, out of the total time the process will take. I don't care about the arbitary tasks your program breaks the function down into, I just want to know how long I have to wait. Oh, and a 100% progress bar should never appear. At 100% progress the task is done and the progress bar disappears. If you have other things to do with the results of the task, then from my POV as a user, that's all part of my wait so should be part of the task the progress bar allows for. Setting a progress bar to 100% should be an assertion failure.
See, part of the idea of the internet is that you give information away for free, in exchange for the wealth of free information you can obtain. You only pay ISPs to maintain the physical network.
Sure, that's a bit socialist. But the problem is that when registration and subscriptions come in, the fundamental ideas behind the web no longer work anymore.
For example, you can't link to other sites to provide information, because your reader may not have a subscription to that other site. In order to offer reasonable value for money, subscription sites have to stand alone, thus destroying the "linked information" model that was the idea for the web in the first place.
Further, more money falling into the web process is generally a bad thing, because it encourages bandwidth/hosting prices to rise (because the purchasers become richer, and/or it's "expected" that they'll be charging a subscription), and also encourages other practises that screw up the ideals of the web such as search engine payola.
(Oh yea, how are search engines going to index those sites? If they're allowed access to the subscription material that's a huge security breach. If they aren't, there's nothing to search anymore.)
Basically, it's supposed to be an online political game of trying to earn position in a castle. Unfortunately, it's long had problems with people wrangling, accusing each other of cliquishness or unfairness, backstabbing each other on forums, etc..
So if you want to play Paranoia online, just take exactly the same engine and context and change the descriptions.;) Hey, now you can have 6 IBs!
1 - Find out how much the RIAA pay their lawyers, call that amount X
2 - Hire a lawyer yourself
3 - Use the lawyer to sue the RIAA for copyright infringement claiming X*(9/10) damages but offer settlement of X*(5/10)
4 - Put all the legal papers on the internet for download
5 - Let anyone download the papers, fill in their names in appropriate places, and submit them with only the filing fee to pay
6 - Have them all sue the RIAA at once, for a whole bundle of lawsuits, all of which it is more economical to concede on than defend
7 - If it does concede any of them, and if anyone opposes one of the RIAA's later lawsuits, have them invoke the doctrine of unclean hands on the grounds that the RIAA has settled in a whole bunch of copyright infringement cases
> 10 dollars (US) retail for a CD. Wholesales at > $7.50. Label takes a dollar, duplication takes > 1.50. Producers and artists get to divide up > that 5 dollars! A gold CD yields half a > million? Divided amongst 5 people? That is a > VERY decent wage for a years work on an album.
Sure. Even if their memories were accurate, it would still be a bad study, as it could not catch the occasions on which these people WOULD have recovered had they NOT used the internet.
> It's amazing what smiling at random people > will do. If you look pissed off, people will > ignore you. If you smile at them, they tend to > smile back.
If they are looking at you in the first place, which they generally aren't.
> WRONG. Nerds and generally obnoxious people > have this problem: they don't know when to > shut up. They're so busy waiting for their > turn to talk they aren't bothering to listen. > There's exactly nothing wrong with being a > spectator. It goes back to being *interested.* > If you're boring, shut up and listen to the > interesting people.
You can do that, but the only result is that the "interesting people" get all of the social bennies that you probably wanted (status, gfs, support in endeavours, etc). Worse yet, it doesn't help your skills, because it only tells you what an "interesting person" does and you aren't one.
> You should talk to Miss Manners. It's not > rocket science. It's human instinct.
So? Pavlovian/Operant conditioning, extinction burst theory, learning adaptation... all are examples of scientific discoveries emerging from what was thought to be human instinct.
> You can't "learn" how to be social from books.
I don't agree with that. If somebody approaches you and does something social, you immediately know if you like them as a result or not. That means your brain contains a mapping from every possible social behaviour to a "how much you like them" return value. Dredge out the entire mapping and write it in a book, and presto.
The problem is, there's much of a muchness about this.
Sure, some people will wind up thinking they're happy while being depressed because they're on the net too much. But at least some of those people would, had they not used the internet, been just plain depressed because they WOULD have failed in real world social situations.
Sadly, in modern society it quickly becomes impossible. Fall just a little bit behind in social skills in young life and you're in big trouble; others don't want to interact with you because of your bad social skills, and then because you can't interact with others, you can't practice and your skills don't improve. Meanwhile, the others ARE interacting and getting better, and the bar to get involved with them is getting higher and higher.
And yet the amount of support offered is lousy. It's been discussed in groups for this sort of thing that the level of emotional pain felt by a man who is permanently unable to connect with any females (regardless of whether or not he "deserves" it) is actually worse than that felt by a woman who has been raped, but look how the support for these things differently.
Why is nobody doing studies of what "social skills" are, and trying to isolate the behaviours they represent?
> Many companies come to mind that made it > without trying to convince some stranger to > loan them a bunch of money before they've > proven themselves in what they do... some that > might be familiar: apple, microsoft, dell...
Problem is, none of these firms had to compete with firms of their current size at the time they were starting up.
As it is, it tends to be very hard to do so. Advertising is the obvious bottleneck: MS/dell/etc can always use another page ad, so you're going to have to bid against them, and if you can't, you won't get distribution.
The only reason why there aren't other friendly operating systems is that the presence of Microsoft in the market means that attempting to produce one is economic suicide. That's also not because the MS one is the best, it's because MS got there first and scored the network effect.
Most obvious counterexample: they could use BeOS. It's nice and user friendly, very fast, and has web browser support enough to do ordering. Sure, the web browser's a bit elderly, but I kinda think that Euro sites would update rather quick if this happened, don't you?
But.. we don't want there to be NO copyright laws. That's far too blanket a solution, and it hoses artists completely.
What would be good is this:
a) Copyright ends at death of author (not copyright holder), that's it. "But what about the kids?" They already got the advantage - genes with creative talent, and possibly a famous pedigree. We want to make sure that they use them.
b) Every copyright is doubled. There is an author's copyright and a market copyright. The author of a work starts with both. The market copyright can be freely sold, transferred, etc. The author's copyright CANNOT be transferred from the author BY ANY MEANS. Thus, authors can still sell copyright rights if they want to, but cannot be forced to give up rights on their own work - they always have author's copyright.
c) Legislate the creation of legal deprotection agencies. These agencies will remove copy protection measures from works once they have confirmed that they are not being used for illegal purposes. (This is not illegal under the DMCA! The DMCA makes it impossible by banning the distribution of the tools and information that would be needed to do so, but doesn't make it illegal.)
d) Ban advertising and nationalise retail. Again super harsh. But, sadly, it is now the *ONLY* way to prevent the commercial market becoming inevitably dominated by the existing big distributors.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an obvious urban legend - if the guy thought that "Wash. Biol. Surv" was cooking instructions, how did he know where to send the letter?
The classic cyberpunk situation of no government at all other than the 'megacorps' doesn't seem to fit too well.
I actually prefer the model in SLA industries, which is a world in which all of the corporations eventually merged into a single huge one which basically makes everything.
If it's active in a particular country, it can undercut or buy out ANYTHING that country's industry can produce several times over, so if it's there, everyone works for them, and then buys stuff made by them. SLA actually print their own money for countries it is active in. Of course, you can choose to be paid in local currency instead if you choose, but since you're inevitably going to buy from SLA eventually and you'd incur a fee turning it back to SLAbucks there's no point.
There are still governments, too. They say stuff sometimes. But basically they know they have the choice of either having SLA in their country or not. If they hack it off, SLA can just leave, leaving the country to build an entire economic infrastructure from scratch with no ability to trade with any SLA-linked nation (SLA won't stop them, but they'll have nothing to offer that SLA can't offer better). So they effectively have control with the illusion of choice.
That's exactly the same kind of "control" that firms have in the real world, which is why I prefer that model.
I don't know what your point is.
In the vast majority of companies, 51% of the shares are held by a single individual or a limited cartel who work together at a lower level, thus rendering meaningless any control granted by the other shares.
Just because companies offer shares doesn't mean they support democracy.
> But that's besides the point because the right
> to keep and bear arms is a constitutionaly
> protected right.
> The right to "infringe on copyright" is not.
But that's not comparing like with like. The right to use your own computer without being spied upon *is* a protected right (although it may not be constitutional).
The right to infringe copyright isn't protected, but neither is the "right" to go around shooting random people in the face.
Actually, it's a bit more subtle than that.
It is *not* illegal, not even under the DMCA, to break copy protection for the purpose of making fair use, or for work with expired copyrights. The DMCA only makes breaking protection a crime when it's done with intent to break copyright law, and making fair use isn't breaking copyright law.
The *problem* however is that the DMCA still bars the distribution of *tools* for breaking copy protection, no matter what they're used for. So, yes, you *can* break the protection on that CD if it's for a fair purpose, but *only* if you do all the work of doing so yourself. This was why the "making it easy" issue came up.
> Heck, Great Britain doesn't even have a
> constitution, so if you'll ever say "buddy,
> you violate my constitutional rights" to a
> British policeman, you will probably give him
> a good laughter.
The UK doesn't have a constitution, but it *does* have habeas corpus; one of the few countries in the UK that does. (Although it's been threatened by some of the laws on terrorism.)
However, it's also had enough stupid cases of home-owners being jailed for assaulting burglars while defending their property that I can't see this being good.
I guess the next step is for the burglar to use a public recording booth to record himself singing "'ere we go" or whatever, take the CD with him when he breaks into someone's house and if he's caught, quickly throw down the CD, claim it was there before, and that he's only entered the house to investigate this unauthorised use of his IP..
> What is it like to create and then have your
> creation ripped off and given away for free?
Like signing a distribution deal?
> You can have all the access you want. You just
> can't decrypt the thing.
Sadly, no. The original poster is correct: the DMCA applies to any technology which impedes copying, even if it is not "the last line of defense".
> There was a case where a guy scored extremely
> high on one of those little tests, and was
> therefore not hired. Of course, once his
> lawyer was done, he probably didn't need to....
What did he sue for?
AFAIX disability discrimination is illegal but ability discrimination is not.
> THAT'S the problem. Copyright is a good, and
> necessary, idea for a capatalistic country.
Yes. But far more of a problem is that copyright law has NOT been updated in ways which are necessary to promote effective capitalism, and HAS been updated in ways which harm it.
For example, no update to copyright law has been made which protects authors from being forced to surrender their copyright in exchange for access to a distribution cartel. This immediately harpoons the "it's to give a profit motive for creating works" angle because typically you have to surrender the copyright to have any change of making any profit. "But the distributors are providing a service!" come the cries. No they're not. They're providing a service that wouldn't be necessary if it wasn't for their own existance, which is a bit like saying the mafia provide a service by not burning down your shopfront.
However, they were QUICK to update copyright law to put legal protection behind copy protection systems, which can clearly be abused: make all playback devices require DRM formats then make the DRM granting systems inaccessible to artists, either by exclusive arrangements or by pricing them too high, thus even FURTHER locking in the distribution system.
Both of these are anticapitalist. Effective capitalism requires a dynamic market where competition is active and reasonable. Neither of these help that.
Yea.
It's the usual story. Companies demand experience on all posts, and then whine about lack of "qualified" applicants. While ignoring the fact that they themselves are creating a qualification that's impossible to get.
Although he might be right about OSS having poor UIs, it's really getting to the stage where there are so many things in general UI design that are broken that it's becoming ridiculous. Let's see:
.INF file to add the connection name. Ok, UI folks, another principle to bear in mind: anything the computer knows may be wrong.
[i]Trying to be clever and failing[/i]. The author wanted server autoprobe. Funny, that, it wouldn't be the first time when I've wanted to tear a configuration system to bits because it insisted on using an autoprobe and offering a selection box, when I [i]knew[/i] where the appropriate server/connection was but couldn't select it because the autoprobe wasn't finding it and there was no free entry box. This even got to one stage where I had to manually edit an
[i]Using the passive voice[/i]. As in "the system is waiting for the Close Programs dialog box to be displayed". Um, excuse me? That's like me sitting in my office saying "I'm waiting for my work to be done". Just as it's my job to do my work, it's "the system"'s job to display the Close Programs dialog box, and it isn't doing it.
[i]Abuse of OK and Cancel[/i]. I should not have to say that an error message is "OK". Unix had this alright with "Dismiss".
[i]Nested OK and Cancel[/i]. Got IE? Tools, Internet Options, Delete Files. Are you sure you want to delete files? OK. Now you're back at the Internet Options screen, but there's still an OK and Cancel button showing. Does clicking Cancel cancel the deletion? Nope. So why is it there? Again, "Apply" and "Dismiss" avoid all of these.
[i]Not saying why things are the case[/i]. Tell me why options are ghosted, tell me why errors occured. I know [i]you[/i] know why, because you just came off the if statement that checked the condition in question.
[i]Confusing information with help[/i]. Information is possibly unrelated facts. Help is directed at progressing the task the user is doing. If you aren't smart enough to figure out how to do that, you can't offer "help", no matter what you name the button.
[i]Non-temporal progress bars[/i]. The progress bar should show the % of time left, out of the total time the process will take. I don't care about the arbitary tasks your program breaks the function down into, I just want to know how long I have to wait. Oh, and a 100% progress bar should never appear. At 100% progress the task is done and the progress bar disappears. If you have other things to do with the results of the task, then from my POV as a user, that's all part of my wait so should be part of the task the progress bar allows for. Setting a progress bar to 100% should be an assertion failure.
And there have been such "hidden features" in MS software ever since..
Well.. umm... actually, they can.
See, part of the idea of the internet is that you give information away for free, in exchange for the wealth of free information you can obtain. You only pay ISPs to maintain the physical network.
Sure, that's a bit socialist. But the problem is that when registration and subscriptions come in, the fundamental ideas behind the web no longer work anymore.
For example, you can't link to other sites to provide information, because your reader may not have a subscription to that other site. In order to offer reasonable value for money, subscription sites have to stand alone, thus destroying the "linked information" model that was the idea for the web in the first place.
Further, more money falling into the web process is generally a bad thing, because it encourages bandwidth/hosting prices to rise (because the purchasers become richer, and/or it's "expected" that they'll be charging a subscription), and also encourages other practises that screw up the ideals of the web such as search engine payola.
(Oh yea, how are search engines going to index those sites? If they're allowed access to the subscription material that's a huge security breach. If they aren't, there's nothing to search anymore.)
Ever hear of Castle Marrach (www.skotos.net) ?
;) Hey, now you can have 6 IBs!
Basically, it's supposed to be an online political game of trying to earn position in a castle. Unfortunately, it's long had problems with people wrangling, accusing each other of cliquishness or unfairness, backstabbing each other on forums, etc..
So if you want to play Paranoia online, just take exactly the same engine and context and change the descriptions.
Sure, but are YOU willing to be the guy possibly getting hit with a court order to pay 125 million?
1 - Find out how much the RIAA pay their lawyers, call that amount X
2 - Hire a lawyer yourself
3 - Use the lawyer to sue the RIAA for copyright infringement claiming X*(9/10) damages but offer settlement of X*(5/10)
4 - Put all the legal papers on the internet for download
5 - Let anyone download the papers, fill in their names in appropriate places, and submit them with only the filing fee to pay
6 - Have them all sue the RIAA at once, for a whole bundle of lawsuits, all of which it is more economical to concede on than defend
7 - If it does concede any of them, and if anyone opposes one of the RIAA's later lawsuits, have them invoke the doctrine of unclean hands on the grounds that the RIAA has settled in a whole bunch of copyright infringement cases
8 - Laugh
> 10 dollars (US) retail for a CD. Wholesales at
> $7.50. Label takes a dollar, duplication takes
> 1.50. Producers and artists get to divide up
> that 5 dollars! A gold CD yields half a
> million? Divided amongst 5 people? That is a
> VERY decent wage for a years work on an album.
Yea, but just try getting it distributed.
Parody is a defense for copyright infringement, not trademark infringement.
Sure. Even if their memories were accurate, it would still be a bad study, as it could not catch the occasions on which these people WOULD have recovered had they NOT used the internet.
> It's amazing what smiling at random people
> will do. If you look pissed off, people will
> ignore you. If you smile at them, they tend to
> smile back.
If they are looking at you in the first place, which they generally aren't.
> WRONG. Nerds and generally obnoxious people
> have this problem: they don't know when to
> shut up. They're so busy waiting for their
> turn to talk they aren't bothering to listen.
> There's exactly nothing wrong with being a
> spectator. It goes back to being *interested.*
> If you're boring, shut up and listen to the
> interesting people.
You can do that, but the only result is that the "interesting people" get all of the social bennies that you probably wanted (status, gfs, support in endeavours, etc). Worse yet, it doesn't help your skills, because it only tells you what an "interesting person" does and you aren't one.
> You should talk to Miss Manners. It's not
> rocket science. It's human instinct.
So? Pavlovian/Operant conditioning, extinction burst theory, learning adaptation... all are examples of scientific discoveries emerging from what was thought to be human instinct.
> You can't "learn" how to be social from books.
I don't agree with that. If somebody approaches you and does something social, you immediately know if you like them as a result or not. That means your brain contains a mapping from every possible social behaviour to a "how much you like them" return value. Dredge out the entire mapping and write it in a book, and presto.
Well...
The problem is, there's much of a muchness about this.
Sure, some people will wind up thinking they're happy while being depressed because they're on the net too much. But at least some of those people would, had they not used the internet, been just plain depressed because they WOULD have failed in real world social situations.
Sadly, in modern society it quickly becomes impossible. Fall just a little bit behind in social skills in young life and you're in big trouble; others don't want to interact with you because of your bad social skills, and then because you can't interact with others, you can't practice and your skills don't improve. Meanwhile, the others ARE interacting and getting better, and the bar to get involved with them is getting higher and higher.
And yet the amount of support offered is lousy. It's been discussed in groups for this sort of thing that the level of emotional pain felt by a man who is permanently unable to connect with any females (regardless of whether or not he "deserves" it) is actually worse than that felt by a woman who has been raped, but look how the support for these things differently.
Why is nobody doing studies of what "social skills" are, and trying to isolate the behaviours they represent?
> Many companies come to mind that made it
> without trying to convince some stranger to
> loan them a bunch of money before they've
> proven themselves in what they do... some that
> might be familiar: apple, microsoft, dell...
Problem is, none of these firms had to compete with firms of their current size at the time they were starting up.
As it is, it tends to be very hard to do so. Advertising is the obvious bottleneck: MS/dell/etc can always use another page ad, so you're going to have to bid against them, and if you can't, you won't get distribution.
Junk.
The only reason why there aren't other friendly operating systems is that the presence of Microsoft in the market means that attempting to produce one is economic suicide. That's also not because the MS one is the best, it's because MS got there first and scored the network effect.
Most obvious counterexample: they could use BeOS. It's nice and user friendly, very fast, and has web browser support enough to do ordering. Sure, the web browser's a bit elderly, but I kinda think that Euro sites would update rather quick if this happened, don't you?
But.. we don't want there to be NO copyright laws. That's far too blanket a solution, and it hoses artists completely.
What would be good is this:
a) Copyright ends at death of author (not copyright holder), that's it. "But what about the kids?" They already got the advantage - genes with creative talent, and possibly a famous pedigree. We want to make sure that they use them.
b) Every copyright is doubled. There is an author's copyright and a market copyright. The author of a work starts with both. The market copyright can be freely sold, transferred, etc. The author's copyright CANNOT be transferred from the author BY ANY MEANS. Thus, authors can still sell copyright rights if they want to, but cannot be forced to give up rights on their own work - they always have author's copyright.
c) Legislate the creation of legal deprotection agencies. These agencies will remove copy protection measures from works once they have confirmed that they are not being used for illegal purposes. (This is not illegal under the DMCA! The DMCA makes it impossible by banning the distribution of the tools and information that would be needed to do so, but doesn't make it illegal.)
d) Ban advertising and nationalise retail. Again super harsh. But, sadly, it is now the *ONLY* way to prevent the commercial market becoming inevitably dominated by the existing big distributors.