Copyrights...

A few months ago, I was having a discussion with my friend about the merits of DRM. I think part of the fundamental problem, as a society, is to understand where all these copyrights issues come from. I was recently reading this paper from David Lametti and I really liked this paragraph. (emphasis mine)

It is true that copyright serves a larger purpose or teleology, which comprises both individual and collective goals. It is meant to foster creative self-expression, and the advancement of a variety of artistic and educational discourses, thereby contributing to the overall benefit of society. This balanced approach to the goals of copyright — ensuring that incentives to create and the rights of users remain in harmony — has been often stated in the Anglo-American tradition, and was recently re-iterated in Canada in the CCH decision. ...

At the end of the day, it's unclear to me that this is currently the goal guiding our efforts. From one perspective, the technology used for DRM should be created independently of copyrights. I mean, to some degree, the use that will be made of the technology should be a reason to stop its creation, else we not only lose DRM technologies but the VHS, the MP3 player, etc.
Once we leave the technology for the sake of technology world, we now have to look on the usefulness of those "discoveries". Will they contribute to the advancement of mankind?

I'm sure this has been written about, but what I would really like to see is the evolution of art and sciences in different environments, ranging from environments very lax in terms of copyrights and environments where creators are given a lot of enforceable rights. I would be curious to see how the programmer earns a living, how the singer earns a living, etc. I'm curious to see how vibrant those spheres are.