The point is that yes, digital items get treated differently by the law because using them requires "technical" copying. Moving them requires copying, using them requires copying, lending them requires copying. The law as written means that digital works will give their buyer far fewer rights than identical physical copies of the same. And yes, that's precisely why the current law is bananas, because it turns digitization into an excuse to enclose the commons. But I have no confidence in the courts to stop it, because that's not what courts do.
Except when it is. Laws are not computer code and it's precisely the court's job to interpret how they apply. This can include overturning previous interpretations. For examples see the recent ruckus about supreme court decisions changing what people interpreted as fundamental and accepted rights.
I'm starting to think this is the case, but the US is a country that enforces its version of copyright with gunboats. Not an easy task to simply find another jurisdiction.
I think about time for a third opium war. China is manipulating currency through trade restrictions, and the West wants to sell them poison, maybe it's time to sail a carrier group up the Pearl River!
The battle that needs to be won is with greedy publishers who don't respect either creators or content consumers.
The copyright/patents issue with China is only part of a much bigger political issue. Gunboat diplomacy isn't the solution, history has shown it's made things worse—China hasn't forgotten the Opium Wars.
