This reminds me of an encounter I wrote about in January. While they’ve now hired people to think about the Internet, none of the senior management actually listen to them…

But, maybe it is coming…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3752354.stm

I think what I had in mind is more like the “netroots” activism we’re seeing now, possibly combined with more openness in the legislative process. This latter isn’t coming voluntarily.

Deadweight copyright is a problem, particularly in film. Larry Lessig is a good expert to read on solutions, but you knew that already.

Agreed. (One little niggle: grandchildren are unlikely to ask about computers talking to each other, they are more likely to ask what a computer is. Obvious, even in 1999
One of the issues not obvious in 1999 and seriously affecting the trend you talk about is current copyright and other Intellectual Property legislation. There should be a market for the most obscure items, as you point out, however, that market is stalled by misguided legislation. Consider your paper (I assume that the IP is held by your organization.) It does not carry any explicit IP rights waver, so I can read it because you, as an official in the organization gave explicit permission. If your organization is disbanded, I cannot, for example, legally make that paper available for others to download without gaining the authority of whoever takes over IP responsibility (although I can give them my paper copy.) Neither can you, even though you wrote it.

The same is true for hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of papers, books, films, recordings of speech, music or anything else where the IP owner is unknown. As your article clearly illustrates, the market for these things would be huge, at least as big as the current market for books and recordings, but it cannot legally exist. And, the really sad fact is, if those owners could be found, very few (none?) would ever object to people enjoying their ‘property’.

Doug, you predicted in 1999 that technology would decrease the power of the political lobbyist. The effect, so far, has been the opposite: to give the Disneys of the world a tool to frighten governments into legislating for large corporations and against the benefits of society as a whole.