Thank you for the correction.
Let me take another swing at it:

I do not believe that a political system that caters to the robber barons of the content mafia, deliberately ignoring the legitimate interest of academia and the general public, is something we should simply accept as a fatality.

It is a tricky subject indeed.
Given the market dominance of Hollywood productions which have already earned their money on the american market and then compete at pretty much any price with local productions are a real problem. How to deal with it is a debatable question, but the "culture" aspect in cultural industry certainly is important and cannot be reduced to pure marketing logic.

People aren't accepting it. Here's a quote from a New York Times interview with David Bowie in 2002.

"Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity," he added. "So it's like, just take advantage of these last few years because none of this is ever going to happen again. You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left. It's terribly exciting. But on the other hand it doesn't matter if you think it's exciting or not; it's what's going to happen."

I see this happening already in music and in video. Both legally and illegally, streaming and downloading music and video is becoming more common, and less expensive. Shoutcast.com for one example is legal, free music like running water.

I suppose it's possible to pass laws against water running downhill, but it's not easy to enforce them. I could be wrong. Perhaps laws can put the Genie back in the bottle. Certainly I understand the concern about such laws. But there are many things to be concerned about in this world.

That’s a pretty telling remark coming from David Bowie. He is not just one of the most respected artists in the business. Bowie is an expert in the field of entertainment technology.

He has consistently been a leader in implementing a wide range of new technologies -- in his stage designs, concert tours (f.ex. holding simultaneous concerts), in terms of music distribution, etc etc.

For the benefit of those who want to read more:

The Bowie paper in the NYT was mentioned by the Observer last fall:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/busin...592964,00.html

The Observer article seems to be written by a journalist successfully brainwashed by the music industry:
"For the record industry, it has been an unqualified disaster, because millions of people aren't paying for their packages. Legal download services like Apple iTunes are beginning to mitigate the disaster, but it's not clear that even iTunes can compete with illicit file-sharing."

How could even iTunes (one of the least obnoxious for-pay music-sites) possibly compete with an inferior product (DRM, high compression) you need to pay for against high-quality rips and HDTV shows on p2p networks for free ?

The NYT would like you to pay to read the original story, but in an ironic twist, given the subject, it is also available, just like tap water, here:

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-A.../msg00047.html

Thumbs down from the Norwegian Ombudsman
 

.
Do note the recent decision by the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman, quoten on MacRumors today (7 June):

"Highlights of the decision
- It is unreasonable that the consumer must give consent to an agreement regulated by English law.
- It is unreasonable for iTunes to disclaim all liability for possible damage the software may cause.
- It is unreasonable that rights to music already downloaded by the consumer may change after purchase."

For a more comprehensive article in English, you may read the Ombudsman’s official website.