I've been fascinated by discussions around copyright and intellectual property ever since I attended my first Source camp (Summer Source - Croatia, 2003). The discussion of what should be "public" as opposed to "private" kind of makes me hot. I could listen to these debates for hours. I think the piece that always gets me about copyright is the Mickey Mouse case - whenever mickey's copyright is about to expire, the copyright laws change to leave him in the full blown control of Disney. Never mind the fact that Disney has made a mint off of a slew of stuff that was in the public domain (Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc.).
So in this months' (february, 2007) Harper's, are two excellent articles about the impacts of copyright and whats allowed in the commons.
In "The Ecstacy of Influence" by Jonathan Lethem, there is a discussion of what works are plagiaries of other works and what has been heavily enfluenced by works, that if created under current copyright laws they would never have existed. He also touches a bit on things like Open Source (which really makes me hot) and works of art and the gift economy (as opposed to the market economy). Lethem makes the case that current copyright must be stopped before everything, including the basic framework of medicine and care, fall out of public control and into private.
Even more interesting (to me anyways) is an accompanying article which actually successful argues for and against an artists full control over their work. "On the Rights of Molotov Man", artist Joy Garnett discusses her struggles over her painting Molotov Man which is actually derived by photographer Susan Meiselas. At the end of her description of the lawsuits and subsequent grassroots campaigns that happened, she asks "Who owns the rights to this man's struggle". The "rebuttal" by Susan Meiselas discusses her attempt to chronicle the struggles of revolutionaries in Nicaragua in the '70's and trying to keep her work seen and used in memory of that context.
Its pretty interesting stuff!