"While a certain extent of copyright protection (10-15 years) is reasonable, the current 50, 70 or more years of copyright stifles innovation and that encourages people to break the law."

Science fiction writer Frederick Pohl is 86 years old. Some of the novels and stories he wrote over 50 years ago are still in print. I hate to think what his financial situation might have been if his copyrights expired after only 15 years.

Perhaps you would have a different idea of what is reasonable if you had to live by your creative work.

Actually, in this case I believe the law is in serious need of adjustment. The law is supposed to benefit society at large, but in the case of copyright it has been extensively hijacked by big business. While a certain extent of copyright protection (10-15 years) is reasonable, the current 50, 70 or more years of copyright stifles innovation and that encourages people to break the law.

Technological progress is undermining the respect for copyright law as well. The term 'Piracy' was meant to be derogative, but now has a heroic ring to it in many circles.

Better take this seriously, adjust the copyright laws to a reasonable level, and move on. Then use our resources on battling the real problems we face, like antidemocratic propaganda and funding of terrorism.

(File)Sharing is a great thing as long as you are in a position to share. Sharing other people's property is called communism. I may be both stupid and reactionary but I think that my friends who spend countless hours producing music both deserve and depend upon what little money they can make from it. If there is no way of getting paid for your work, I think culture will in the long run be impoverished. Once again, communism.
While I am not particularly fond of the iTunes format, precisely because it can't be played on other devices, I think a well-functioning market will provide alternatives when enough people feel the same way. It shouldn't be a government issue. Piratbyrån is a symptom of the large media corporations reluctance to adapting to new technology, but it's not a cure. Apple iTunes is in my eyes a remedy, albeit a bad one.

I think the use of the word 'ruin' is pejorative. The EU authorities don't want to ruin anything: they see Apple as ruining fair use - not to protect the ??AA but to protect their own artificial monopoly on the market. Imagine if you will a CD from Sony that only plays on CD players from Sony - then you'll get the idea. And as Rick Falkvinge points out, this is not about legal or illegal downloads: this is about the sharing instead of the distribution of culture and knowledge.

Following is a translation of his speech on the subject. He's seen the translation and given a nod and a thanks. And in this speech he fairly lays it all on the line. It's a worthwhile read.

http://rixstep.com/1/20060606,00.shtml

In short, Europe are not the enemy here and Apple are not the good guys and the ??AA don't improve things by making their IP more freely available. Europe are looking out for European citizens; Apple are in a real sense more of the bad guys; and the ??AA have to find another model to satisfy their greed - just as they did with the advent of television, recorded music, the cassette tape, and the VCR.

Immaterial law must be respected, but I think the entertainment companies have brought this upon themselves. They need to increase the availability of their products over the internet. It is ridiculous that they still insist people buy plastic discs of poor quality, which in some cases even have a zone-lock. At least Piratbyrån wants a public debate on the subject, as opposed to the massive pirate industry across Asia.
However, I am aware that Apple iTunes, a company actually making money on internet distribution, consider closing down their services in certain European countries whose governments want to ruin their business model by opening up their format to players by other manufacturers.