Really?
“The idea we should dilute intellectual property is utterly barmy,” Whittingdale said
The idea we should permit 'intellectual property' in its current form is what is utterly barmy. What we have now is the beginnings of a global, indefinite tax on future culture. There will be no more Handel, or Bach; no more Shakespeare; no more Mark Twain; no more mix tapes; no more second-hand stores; there will be only the renewing of a "license" to the gatekeepers. Gatekeepers of art and media that should belong to society and be freely enjoyable by all.
That is not to say it should be without cost, after all selling books, putting on shows etc all need funds. But after the reasonable copyright is up (say, 10-20 years), they should be free as in freedom. Free to distribute, parody, re-work, share, build on. Just like the classics are now - and the classics seem to be doing rather well if you ask me, even if the originals are out of copyright.
This simply will not be possible with commercial gatekeepers holding on to their "property" for the shareholders. Future culture will simply be a wasteland of commercial dross where artists and the public suffer under the wheels of the corporate machine.
This is the future being laid out before us, and this is what must be resisted. This is why we need ideas like Copyleft and Creative Commons. This is why we need to encourage alternatives to the RIAA/MPAA/BPI cabals.
PIPA, SOPA, SIPA, Hadopi, DEA, etc are evil laws that do not serve the societal interest. So what if a few companies go to the wall due to the Internet. So what? Survival of the fittest. Evolve or die. Provide the service people want, or go bankrupt. End of discussion.
Instead our toadying "leaders" enact laws to enslave our future culture to some faceless bottom-line. The bottom-line of an industry that is renowned for false-accounting and screwing artists over much more than any copyright infringers may have.
Artists need money to live and eat like the rest of us. The RIAA/MPAA/BPI etc do not represent artists (never have), they represent companies whose sole purpose is to maximise short-term profit at any cost. Nothing else. And if that means screwing over the actual talent, then this is what will (and does) happen.
So if you support artists, art, culture, expression and freedom; your only choice is to oppose these laws and the people who represent them.