If we could somehow get laws on the books that forbade the worst bits of what big business are trying to ram through, perhaps.
In the US, for instance, I guess this would be something like a constitutional amendment protecting internet traffic as free speech, or forbidding the government from enforcing copyright as a criminal offence (I'm not convinced it shouldn't be dealt with in the civil courts)...
... or maybe even just enforcing more openness in the procedures by which legislation is written, so it's far easier for the public/press to see "oh look, this proposal massively favours <supercorp>, who just happen to be throwing money at the primary sponsor WELL ISN'T THAT INTERESTING".
Not that that sort of thing is ever gonna happen. There's no incentive for the legislators to do so, and plenty for them not to.
>or forbidding the government from enforcing copyright as a criminal offense (I'm not convinced it shouldn't be dealt with in the civil courts)...
This is a very good point. At the moment, because copyright is given criminal provisions, the big media companies get to have their investigation, their prosecution, and their punishment mostly all paid for by the taxpayers.
Yet, in the other leg of "IP", that being patents, there is no criminal provision, and so the owner of a patent has to bear the full burden of paying for the investigation and paying for the prosecution of any infringement.
So, if patents can work with only civil court procedure, where the attacker has to pay his/her full costs himself (1) why should copyright be "special" in providing for criminal prosecution?
(1) I'm skipping over "loser pays" concepts, because even with "loser pays", the attacker still has to pay up until the point they finally win in court before they get any money back. They don't get free, government tax funded, assistance right from the start.
In the US, for instance, I guess this would be something like a constitutional amendment protecting internet traffic as free speech, or forbidding the government from enforcing copyright as a criminal offence (I'm not convinced it shouldn't be dealt with in the civil courts)...
... or maybe even just enforcing more openness in the procedures by which legislation is written, so it's far easier for the public/press to see "oh look, this proposal massively favours <supercorp>, who just happen to be throwing money at the primary sponsor WELL ISN'T THAT INTERESTING".
Not that that sort of thing is ever gonna happen. There's no incentive for the legislators to do so, and plenty for them not to.