That's pretty much the state of copyright law as it stands now. But it's far from clear that copyright law is a valid concept to begin with. First the fuss we're seeing about enhancing copyright is predicted on the assumption that we're entering an information based economy, and we're passing ever more draconian laws in an attempt to build a foundation for that economy without considering whether it's reasonable to do so.
First, IP law is not immune to challenge. It's an odd concept to being with, what do you own if you own IP? An idea? A thought? If you share with me that thought is it not in my head also? Do you therefore own something that most probably has a physical manifestation in my brain? If memory turns out to be encoded in proteins, do you own those proteins in my brain?
IP law has no one clear foundation for it's justification, in it's history it's been justified in various ways.
One is Natural Law. Under natural law those naturally occurring things with which I mix my labor are mine. Ownership is allocated to one entity on the premise that two cannot simultaneously have possession, and so ownership must be applied to one or the other.
This is not the case with IP, as Jefferson so eloquently pointed out, IP is not scarce. My understanding has not diminished yours, so exclusive ownership need not be established, indeed it cannot be.
Another is Fairness: If I invent it, I have a right to profit from it. Fine, except that I can patent my mousetrap but not a mathematical algorithm or a philosophical truth. Obviously allowing protection of these would create problems, you couldn't live an existential life without paying the estate of Sartre for example, but if creations of philosophy aren't deserving of remuneration, why are other inventions. How can we claim fairness as a justification for IP law if we refuse to apply the law fairly?
The constitution endorses the Utility theory, that IP law is necessary to promote the useful arts. The premise of this is that creators would not create if they weren't paid. This audience, hackers, more than most dismisses that idea on it's face. Just look at Linux, sendmail, FreeBSD and any number of incredibly useful programs or technologies created, many the best in their class, without any remuneration.
It is clear that the profiteers of copyright law, the newly protected class of sellers and distributors who now have an equal stake in the IP that pays their way are dependent on copyright law and in the past an argument could have been made that the availability of IP is dependent on these publishers making a profit, independent of paying the authors, or their rather expensive distribution methods would fail.
This is no longer the case. It is now reasonable to consider publication to be cost free. In fact the very successful distribution schemes of things like Linux (or Doom) show that not only can superior products be developed without remuneration, but they can also be widely distributed.
If it is the optimization of the greatest good we seek, it is clear that the path that WIPO and other bills takes is not going to be successful. It is obvious that these laws are being passed for the benefit of the corporations that profit from the distribution and control of ideas and information and not for the benefit of society at large.
And this is an unconscionable perversion of the original and noble intent of copyright law and represents a tremendous shift: In effect the government is become the willing agent of corporations against it's population. Your tax money goes to support the profitability of corporations in violation of your right to information.
But can it succeed? This is the real question, and I posit that the punishments created for violating copyright law, for infringing on corporate responsibility which exceed the penalties for murder in some cases, that these laws are a de facto recognition of the fact that most of the population doesn't give a damn about copyright law. Unlike tangible property law which benefits almost everyone directly, and carries a do unto others reciprocity that everyone can understand, the general population does not own IP and so these laws only hinder them and do not benefit them.
And so why should they, or we, pay any attention.