fkeel:
Obviously, this works against companies like Microsoft and Apple. The reason for this is, that these systems ("alternative business models") are empowering to the individual, small entrepreneur (like myself) and detrimental for large companies. Which could mean that in the future we will see markets controlled not by one or two quasi-monopolies, but by a plethora of smaller companies (which, in my opinion would be a very good thing). Large companies feel threatened by this, and that is why they are pushing for protection of the current copyright and property system. Maybe it will work, but this is something I am scared of, because I am afraid it will lead to a society ruled continuously more and more by company policies than by actual democratic systems.
Frankly, I believe most of that paragraph shows a distinct lack of understanding of human history. I also think it places an unwarranted amount of faith in what 'alternative business models' can accomplish. Large businesses exist for the simple reason that they are able to provide most cost effective products to the public, which will always choose the cheaper item. 'Alternative business models' have so far only proven themselves when dealing with new, or unique niche products that are not in large demand. Whether that will change is debatable, though I personally doubt it.
fkeel:
I would rather live in a world where copyright completely fails, as I believe it to be the freer, more interesting and more progressive scenario.
It is most certainly less free (though it certainly fits with the term 'progressive'), since by depriving the content creator the ability to benefit from their labor or even to control its use (ie, work product), it effectively turns the content creator into a slave, whose very purpose is to serve at the whims of others...