I would like to see a Bill drawn up by the people, detailing specific points about what “copyright” is defined by them. I’m willing to bet the most prolific Artists will hold the most conservative views, and the “connoisseur” will hold the most liberal view.

I personally see copyright as protecting artists in two points (a liberal view by my definition):
A) receiving credit for their work, and not having someone else take credit for it.
B) prohibiting unauthorized distributors from profiting off their work.
(This is in no way an accurate evaluation of actual copyright laws, just opinion)

I’m not sure that this specific Bill is what I’d like to see covering this issue, but it’s a start. The problem I see with it, is it’s paving the way for DRM. It’s my personal opinion that DRM is the equivalent of “Thought Police”, in the way it allows corporations to control how I listen to my music (example: not on my mp3 player).

The profound thing about this entire situation is the tons of money “not being made” by anyone, for the liberal sharing of data. This is what’s really bugging those that traditionally controlled the profits in the distribution market.

That type of world doesn’t exist anymore, so the last resort is making laws to force the market to operate in an emulated fashion. Because these artists don’t need large corporations to produce and distribute their work anymore, I feel that the market has to be redefined, not the laws on the books.