No, Klinger was trying to get a section 8. Section 108 is the part of U.S. Copyright law that

Among other things, ... provides limited exceptions for libraries and archives to make copies in specified instances for preservation, replacement and patron access.

Needless to say the committee that is reexamining the "exceptions and limitations applicable to libraries and archives" has such experts as Troy Dow, Vice President of Government Relations, The Walt Disney Company. (hattip: Slashdot)

From DRM Watch we find

The South Korean P2P file-sharing service Soribada revealed more details of its plans to convert to a paid service after losing a legal appeal against the Korean music industry last November. In an agreement with the Korea Music Producers' Association (KMPA), Soribada will charge users KRW 500 (US $0.51) for DRM-protected music tracks and KRW 700 ($0.72) for non-DRM-protected tracks. Soribada, one of several Korean P2P networks in discussions with KMPA, will use acoustic fingerprinting technology to control usage of some files on the network.

DRM Watch then reaches the conclusion that this means the seller expects a 40% piracy rate. Ed Felten provides a clear explanation of why this conclusion is silly.

From Christine MacLeod's book Inventing the Industrial Revolution : The English Patent System, 1660-1800

...the [English] crown, desperate for new sources of patronage and revenue in the 1630's, was able to exploit [loopholes]. Industrial corporations were created or transformed to operate patents that conferred monopoly powers, at the price of an annual rent or pro rata payment to crown. Major items of consumption - salt, soap, starch, coal, for example - rose dramatically in price as monopolists sought to recoup the rents and premiums demanded by the government and to extract high profits while their political luck held. The practicioners of some trades were barred from exercising their legitimate occupation except on the payment of fines, or they paid harsh penalties for refusal.

Sheldon Richman has a nice essay about how the WTO and developed nations are taxing developing nations for the use of ideas. He also provides a nice explanation of the "natural rights" perspective on intellectual property

But how does one own an idea once it leaves the confines of one's mind? At that point, other people have copies in their minds. To interfere with their use of their copies is to violate their freedom. If you've invented and patented the wheelbarrow and I see you using it as I pass your property, no theory of natural justice can insist that I have no right to use my own materials to make a copy of the wheelbarrow. Not only that: no theory of natural justice can insist that I have no right to sell to willing buyers the wheelbarrows I make. But patent law would stop me. Similarly, copyright law prevents me, even in the absence of contract, from nonfraudulently using as I see fit the books and recording media that I purchase.

On the mercantilism front, I will add my own experience. I was at a conference in Barcelona sponsored by the World Bank, and an economist who worked for one of the European intellectual property bureaucracies said intellectual property was good for developing nations - that it would lead to a great increase in innovation in the third world. I objected, and said that while economists disagreed about a lot of things having to do with intellectual property, the one thing we pretty much all agreed on was that forcing IP on developing countries couldn't possibly be good for them - no one who has studied or thought about the matter thinks the incentive effect in encouraging new innovation could possibly be strong enough to offset the enormous cost of having to pay the developed world for all existing ideas. There were quite a few economists at the conference - none objected to my statement.

An interesting set of facts from Mother Jones (hattip: Larry Lessig). They don't seem to understand the distinction between intellectual property which is about controlling ideas, and trademark which is about controlling your identity. While there are excesses in trademark law as enforced by the courts, the basic idea is sound, and any court system is bound to have imperfections.

Ed Felten examines how the law and technology such as DRM impact our freedom to tinker and improve software. Felten is a computer scientist and his blog is particularly good probing the technical details of how things work - or don't work.

Larry Lessig examines copyright issues and the current excesses of copyright length and digital rights management.

The Sony-BMG fiasco has demolished one argument for obtaining music legally rather than illegally over P2P networks. The RIAA advises against using file sharing networks because "file-sharers' computers are vulnerable to the viruses infecting other machines on the P2P networks." Leaving aside just how great this vulnerability is - F-Secure reports that there are no viruses to infect MP3 audio files - Sony-BMG has handily demolished this argument by planting its own malware on users computers.

Eric Rasmusen has a nice post about the role of marketing in generating profit to cover the fixed cost of innovation. The model works well, for example, explaining how W.W. Norton profited from the 9/11 Commission Report, even though there was no copyright.

In the war on thought thieves thought police must be the logical next step.