Was it so bad back when you could just buy software for money? Before business models built on eyeballs and data mining instead of copyright?
But in the case of proprietary file formats, or really any non-crypto-based attempt to hinder interoperability, the less control, the better. For example, Microsoft could have hypothetically designed their DOC format for the explicit purpose of creating legal issues, such as by having files consist of a series of API calls to reconstruct the document (like WMF!), so that anyone parsing the document would have to reimplement the APIs. To be fair, the need to do so for actual compatibility would weigh heavily in favor of fair use, whereas the story with Android is somewhat weaker (especially because nobody seems to have told the Federal Circuit that Android actually is compatible with existing Java libraries, rather than the API copying being solely for the sake of programmer familiarity...) Also, there is no real need to use copyright for this purpose in the first place: patents have been shown to be quite effective in locking down file formats (c.f. H.264, x86 instructions) - and don't have fair use - so arguably copyright gives offenders nothing they couldn't achieve by other means. But then, patents are limited-duration and who knows, maybe the law with respect to them will be improved some day. No need to hand out extra tools.
Visual J++ was a very usable Java. Had Sun failed to sue it out of existence, the world would have had a Java with a good UI stack developers actually used, an IDE that was not unusably slow and buggy, AND almost all packages built for Sun's Java would drop right in without problems. Visual J++ would have created the same effect on the use of Java that Android did, but it would have happened approximately 10 years earlier.
Sun's suit was tremendously destructive of a very useful product that would have helped the cause of Java's wide use. Unnecessary, spiteful, and an own-goal.
EDIT: And less VB, and more Windows applications software running in a managed language runtime, years earlier.
Can't argue about the UI stack in general, but IntelliJ is a dream compared to anything Microsoft have ever produced.
Forte later became NetBeans and today it is fine but it was rubbish back then especially compared to Microsoft's tool chain.
This is what it took to make interactive Java successful in Android: Subtract cross-platformness, add a runtime designed for a specific OS architecture, add a nice UI stack, and add modularity to apps that makes component lifecycle useful to running apps efficiently. Among other mods. Android "corrupted" the fuck out of Java which was absolutely nowhere as a language for interactive software.
Oracle should have gotten on the bandwagon.
Joel on Software had article about the file formats several years ago. Apparently big chunks of the files are basically just memdumps. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/02/19.html
I don't know if this is still the best way. LibreOffice has came a long way for sure, but still doesn't reproduce Word's layout perfectly (which is still the expectation).
E.g. if I open a word document in libreoffice (to do e.g. review and commenting), save it without any changes to the layout, then I'd expect the original author to have the same document layout as before... and that is not so. The same applies to LibreOffice Calc - opening and saving the document produces changes.
Can't you just have a unit test that verifies that reading and immediately writing a document should keep it completely unchanged, except possibly for metadata?
I do not envy those who have spent years of their life trying to reverse engineer .doc and .xls formats... those are pretty nasty.
My understanding with Java is MS had signed a contract with Sun so there were other obligations. From a purely engineering POV though it makes total sense to extend. When I embed a language in my app (lua, JavaScript, whatever) the first thing I do is expose all my functionality.
Ok. Shame on me. You win. Checkmate.
But you won't fool me twice. No more support for "innovation" and "intellectual property" of any kind.
You can still ask me to pay for it, but you won't have the copyright industry stick to swing at me if I decide I'd rather get it from an unsupported source because your version only comes with digital restrictions.
Most of the public would consider those pretty enormous consequences.
Heck, I'd be upset if I had to switch away from a MacBook Pro to a commodity-PC-hardware + Linux solution for personal use today, even without any of the other things that group of people and companies you mention have produced. And I'm a-ok with paying for those things, or paying other people for doing interesting things on top of those things.
Maybe you think the risk of that actually happening is pretty small, but as-written, the consequences are actually pretty huge.
In your hypothetical example world, Linux would be on equal playing field when it comes to video/hardware drivers. So it could compete as a serious gaming platform. Without vendor lock-in, hardware would have to be more interchangeable, so can select their own choice of hardware, which can be cheap or expensive or powerful or quality or pretty etc and fit it inside an aluminium casing if they like. They could get a matte screen and a nice keyboard ...
Without Apple's market power behind it, nobody would consider using iTunes over a normal mp3 player.
There is demand for pretty computers, powerful ones, durable & sturdy ones, et cetera. That won't change without Apple. Sure it won't offer the exact same things Apple does today, but on the other hand it will provide a whole bunch of things that Apple today doesn't or won't. On the whole it will be neutral or positive.
I was not part of that, and neither was I part of some minority complaining while the majority did this. I don't think this ever happened. Just because there's a pretense of democracy doesn't mean the general public is actually to blame for everything.
It's not like copyright law is something Presidential candidates run on. I think the author is overstating his case with regards to public perceptions. The first problem with public perceptions is, when laws are forged in the court room (or codified in treaties), they're essentially happening removed from public scrutiny. Not everyone is reading EFF manifestos.
It's even worse because they're technical questions, requiring a certain expertise in IT as a specialized field, meaning a small percentage of people in the U.S. understand much less care about these laws.
Where I may agree about a shift in perceptions is for a different reason. As more people have entered the field, which now has television shows about it and some of the world's largest companies to boot, there are more people with an interest/curiosity or knowledge in IT. Better able to understand the ramifications of rulings about APIs.
But as someone said, we don't really leave in that much of a democracy as we think. Corporations have a louder voice. If they stand to benefit for a position they'll make more noise (in legal efforts or lobbying) in favor of it. And it's no surprise that we're seeing two behemoths battle it out.
And when the public votes with there money (the Montgomery bus boycott) and back it up at the ballot box, you could actually effect change.
Are you straight or ironic? Let's not forget that, in the current system, labels get served first while those artists remain in debt. It works with the system of advances and invoicing, mostly for tours and TV, but in the present situation I've found the example with album sales: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml
We, the US public, out of the goodness of our hearts and wanting to foster art, gave up our right to "repeat what we heard" (copying, when what you hear is digital) in return for incentives to create art.
And then bam; decades later the incentives are the de facto baseline, and have been extended with almost no public awareness (let alone debate) using the special interest money that our goodwill created for them.
It is the ultimate checkmate of democracy, and if it weren't so unjust, you would have to hand it to the media industries for playing so masterfully.
Well, good job. You got us. You took the rules we made, and took the public (US, but even more abroad, by exporting your draconian laws via more special interest money) and absolutely destroyed us. You won. Game over.
But wait... not quite. The game is politics. And if you had been content to simply swim in your unimaginable Scrooge McDuck pool of gold dubloons, you would swim until the end of time. But the public is finally starting to notice, and the technorati whose careers and employers (like Google) depend on having a level playing field (even though they try to tilt it in their favor when they can) are starting to notice. I'm not so optimistic that change will come, but if it does, my vote will be for whatever is closest to "burn the fucker to the ground". And some other people feel the same way.
What's the possible consequence of such an extreme change? I guess the risk of fewer Taylor Swifts. Fewer Kany Wests. Fewer Oracles. Fewer Microsofts. Fewer Steve Jobs. Those are such small consequences that, to be honest, they might be additional benefits.
It would be best if the copyright system were reduced to a smouldering ruin, so that the public could better understand exactly what we gave up when the copyright regime was created, and make a more informed decision about which incentives really are needed to make innovation happen. Until we do, the special interests created by those very laws will continue to make us pay for the favor we gave them.