Wrong take on intellectual property

The author is all over the place, equating any kind of sharing and collaboration (software, music, video) as a anti-individual, mao-ist, anti-capitalist cancer. He writes against "the glorification of open-source software, free information and collective work at the expense of individual ... See Morecreativity..." while "communist" linux may have been bad for microsoft, it's allowed thousands of companies to divert their os licensing fees to other, more productive aspects of building their businesses, and I don't think anyone would accuse ms of fostering innovation or individual creativity. On the music side of things, he claims that the internet caused music to be uncreative ("a mashup of the old") because it took the financial incentive away from musicians. Contrary to this, the music and movie industry are both experiencing their best years ever, even in the midst of a recession. In addition, before the internet it seemed like radio was converging towards one homogeneous clear-channel station... it's so easy now to find new musicians there's no excuse for listening to people who recycle old stuff, unless that's what you're into. Intellectual property was envisioned as a temporary monopoly granted to creators to encourage new creations - when copyright is extended from 28 years, to 42 years, 56 years, 95 years, and now 120 years (!), that's not a temporary monopoly, it's permanent. In a vibrant culture, artists should be able to use mickey mouse to make a statement, they shouldn't have to worry about being sued over an 80-year old cartoon (that itself was a derivative of earlier works). Much like our drug laws, if everyone is breaking the law, maybe it's a bad law?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/science/12tier.html