Copyrights and patents -- in US law at least -- derive from the same sentence in the Constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries.
"Authors" and "Writings" became copyrights, and "Inventors" and "Discoveries" became patents. They are indeed two different things, but the theory and purpose behind each of them are the same.
---
The trouble with trying to attack this problem from the Fair Use angle is that it's... well... backwards. We shouldn't begin with super-strict copyright law and pick away at the edges with rules like Fair Use. Instead we should begin with almost no copyright law, and then add what few protections are needed.
Remember: The point is simply to promote progress. Anything behind that is excessive.
Unfortunately the Constitution eventually meets the road: Copyrights and Patents -- in US law -- derive from Acts of Congress.
If you think there's any chance of repealing that stuff and going back to Jefferson's quaint musings on the topic I think you're misguided. There's simply no way to frame an argument on the nature of "property." Nobody understands it and Congress ain't budging anyway.
But Fair Use is inherently flexible, arguable and relatable by the guy who uploads NASCAR highlights he doesn't own to YouTube.
Read up on the DMCA's Fair Use exemptions and the EFF's numerous victories. And think about it in the context of current culture. You're never going to mobilize nascarfan83 to read up on law, but you can probably get him to sign a petition that clips under 20 seconds are okay on YouTube.
I agree with you. I think we're talking about two different things, though. My goals are... well "goals" is a little ambitious of a word. How about: What I would like to see is a complete reform of copyright law. Or, at the very least, the decriminalization of file-sharing. Anything less, and the battle isn't over.
I don't expect nascarfan83 to read up on law. Landmark decisions that affect the interpretation of the (and, indeed, the legality of the law) tend to come from Supreme Court cases. And the justices on the Supreme Court are quite fond of reading up on old laws. :)
---
The trouble with trying to attack this problem from the Fair Use angle is that it's... well... backwards. We shouldn't begin with super-strict copyright law and pick away at the edges with rules like Fair Use. Instead we should begin with almost no copyright law, and then add what few protections are needed.
Remember: The point is simply to promote progress. Anything behind that is excessive.