You mean more business friendly

An intelligent approach to IP / copyright / patents can be beneficial to business overall, although the IP holders might not believe so -- but they aren't the only companies that matter.

And, as Lessig points out in an article Ben Tilly linked to, even for copyright holders, restricting copyright is both bad (possible loss of income) and GOOD (making it easier to build on other people's work without fear of lawsuits).

Dan Gilmor of the SJ Merc has been hammering on this issue, too.

Just to give one example: do you think software patents help or hurt the software business overall? I think the answer is obvious -- and getting rid of (or severely restricting) software patents would be very friendly to the overall software business.

The current RIAA/MPAA approach (as exemplified by the DMCA, SSCA proposal, etc) is only beneficial to a few select companies.

Tony

At least business-friendly meaning beneficial to business. The non business friendly I meant was in respect to legal actions brought or supported by the corps.

Most of the recent abuses (IMO) of the legal system resulting in an ever tighter lockdown of "knowledge for profit" will result in a loss; loss of knowledge from public view, loss of expanded business opportunities for both established and new firms, loss of scientific advances (or at least a slower rate of discovery), loss of life in some cases.

That said, profit should be possible to any who discover/create something new. But when is it enough? What is copyright now, 70 years after the death of the author (a huge money maker for Disney and a "Mickey Mouse" law in a very exact sense). That is simply too much.

Welcome to IWETHEY!