As they should. Software IP needs a new domain of IP protection outside copyright/patent/trademark law.

This is the domain of the legislature, not the courts. We shouldn't shoehorn in an interpretation we like or don't like because of the failure of the law to adapt to new kinds of content and culture towards it.

> This is the domain of the legislature, not the courts. We shouldn't shoehorn in an interpretation we like or don't like because of the failure of the law to adapt to new kinds of content and culture towards it.

The courts are the fallback when legislation comes into question. It's not a perfect system but it attempts to balance itself out. For example, laws that violate your constitutional rights can be challenged in court, as they should.

For anyone who is curious about this line of thinking, I'd recommend reading a little bit of Neil Gorsuch's "A Republic, If You Can Keep It." The book covers these ideas very well.

On the other hand it's dry, repetitive, and has really poor flow, so I'm struggling to finish it myself.

Throughout history, Congress has leaned heavily on the side of rights holders. I would love it if this would be a wake up call for Congress that overzealous copyright protection has stifled innovation and contributed to the current rent-seeking business models in entertainment.

Rent seeking is everywhere these days. Not just entertainment. Sure major studios have realized they can actually collect more revenue by sharing their entire libraries (opposed to selling single dvds) but so have developers who favor building and renting luxury apartments over single family starter homes. Or the monthly subscription box craze. Or Amazon scheduled deliveries.