There are always unanswered questions, legal FUD, and a lack of case law when a new technology brings up previously unanswered legal questions. This is just how law works. It doesn't necessarily mean that all of those things are illegal, or that the foundational law is fundamentally flawed. Yes, more case law is needed. Yes, some small tweaks could be necessary to clarify what 'copying' really means on the internet. But no, the underlying concept of copyright is still very necessary to protect creators from those with the power to exploit them.
> It doesn't necessarily mean [...] that the foundational law is fundamentally flawed.
I say it does.
Copyright was created in the age of printing presses. In order to violate copyright at significant scales, you had to be an industry player. You needed access to the expensive machines. It simply wasn't possible otherwise. Obviously, copyright makes sense in such a world. It's even enforceable since corporations are big targets.
But we are living in the 21st century. Everyone has globally networked general purpose computers in their pockets capable of copying and transmitting information at speeds and scales unimaginable to anyone in the last century. Everyone infringes copyright on a daily basis without even thinking twice about it. Copying is a fundamental computer operation, computers make it easy and natural to copy virtually anything. There's nothing they can do to stop it without literally destroying this wonderful invention.
Copyright is clearly hanging on for dear life. I say let it die.
