In the world of the near future, the idea you express, the song you sing, the story you tell, etc has to be your own or you pay to use it. Why? Read below!
Here is a selection of the thoughts I expressed on the subject during many Twitter debates and discussions brought about by SOPA and PIPA.
Intellectual Property and Copyright are the "global finance" of the not so distant future. The new capitalism. They are replacing land and money as "capital".
The internet and social media of global appeal, as well as the issues raised by SOPA and PIPA, are reinforcing the rationale for a "world government" with a world legislative body (parliament).
Other than the ole taxation w/o representation, globalisation (& things like SOPA) raise the issue of legislation w/o (world) representation. In a globalised world, laws of all kinds need to have global application but only if voted by a global parliament (global = UN or WTO). In a globalised world some countries (USA, Germany etc) cannot expect to decide the laws or rules & then others to accept them.
The issue of IP will keep emerging in the agendas of the West as the US & Europe economy produce little but Services and intellectual products.
Eg the US unilaterally passed DMCA a few years ago and now is trying to expand its application via ACTA after failure via WTO
Those countries who do not want to share their sovereignty via a world government and parliament, will be outside the global system of trade, media, www, etc much like "gated communities" because, simply, no country can have its "independence" cake and eat it too, be it UK, HUN or any! Opt-outs will be total not a la carte. Thus it is not loss of sovereignty but sharing of it. Those who don't wish to share can optout of the "globe" (or for now, EU)
All I'm saying is that there must be (systemic, rational, political etc) consistency: Either a) real global or b) real national. Hybrids fail
And how are national interests or POVs represented in such a world parliament and law making? Well, by analogy, in a national parliament one expects his local MPs to ally with other to represent the POVs of the area in the grand scheme! So, by the same method they are by/in national parliaments eg in Germany, in the US, UK, France, etc! As per religious/cultural/custom differences, the same. law enforcement inside systems for religious/cultural/custom differences, applies to many countries today. They solve it. The world can, too.
Otherwise, we may as well start thinking of going all the way back to city-states of past milleniums to preserve sovereignty in its purest (?) sense? Yet single state homogeneity is a myth! Even single city homogeneity is a myth, was and is.
So what we cannot have is "global systems" of any kind that are based on the legislation of one country (eg USA). The other option is to stop everything global or international (including www, world trade and global finance) and revert to gated countries
What is a world government and parliament politically viable?
Need I remind you that if the city-states of Ancient Greece had united into a federal state, History would be quite different?
So what is politically sustainable and what is not evolves. SOPA/PIPA is a rude awakening for much of the world!
After all, EU, UNASUR, ASEAN, etc are a step towards eventual global union. Or return to city-states!
My last word on this: USA must realise that it cannot legislate for the whole world (or www). It's the US of America not US of World. So, as I wrote to an American lawmaker, a balance between protecting intellectual property & internet freedom is a matter for a world parliament to decide, not the US or EU bc the 1st W in www stands for world not US.
See also my post: >Globalisation, today and in 300 BC