(Note: I am doing this for Che Guevara. This is all his work.)
Intellectual property is very much a hot topic in modern society. Thanks to the Internet, we have near unlimited access to a incredibly large volume of books, music, movies, software, games and media outlets. However, these sources are all being subject to increased regulation by corporate agencies, whether through restrictive DRM or through legal and PR battles aimed at terrorizing the general public into submission.

In America, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act gave these unique rights to corporations, allowing them to pursue legal action against individuals who had been tracked down through 'various' means.

Canada recently fought down it's own version of the DMCA, known as Bill C-60. This bill would have imposed several ridiculous regulations on IP. No private copying of sound recordings or other media. Absolute ownership of digital media would also come into question.

From the Kill Bill C-60 site wrote:
Have you ever been a tourist and asked a stranger to take your picture with your camera? Well, under the terms of Bill C-60 doing so will give that stranger copyright over the picture that was taken. You would not be legally able to use that picture for anything other than private personal uses. So don't decide to share it with your friends on your web site, and don't use it for commercial purposes unless you can locate that stranger. What, you were Brazil when that picture was taken? Well, good luck!

Although the Bill in its current form has been shot down, how long before something equally restrictive is lobbied for by private American corporations complaining about the rampant digital piracy north of the border? Barring the private corporate lobby further tipping the scales in their own favor, how long before software and hardware standardization imposes these same kinds of restrains without government legislation being required?

iTunes is a good example of a potential abuse of consumers through technology. Although EMI recently decided to release their entire library as DRM-Free, they still incorporate tagging information into each file. A consumers name and email address are imbedded into each file. If they choose to trade these files, they're setting up a chain reaction of lawsuits should agencies like RIAA choose to pursue them for sharing the files over P2P networks. Instead of just getting one person during a bust, they could get whole networks of people unwittingly trading watermarked media over the Internet.

Microsoft is going in another direction. I've recently posted several links to a patent they recently published that would give them access and control over the use and standardization of a unique style of P2P distribution. United States Patent 20070136608: Off-line economies for digital media Instead of seeking legal action against those looking to trade digital media, this form of distribution would monitor and tax distribution through this new channel, created through 'trusted computing' channels.

Are we at a breaking point where our own governments lack of technological knowledge has created a power vacuum that Private Corporations are rapidly attempting to fill?

Should there be more government action to ensure that Private Corporations aren't granted complete monopolies over digital media (which amounts to control over digital culture.)

Should consumer watchdog groups be created and mandated to prevent these kinds of abuses of power from taking place in the first place?

Discuss.