Intellectual Property and the American Individual

So much of my studies this semester have centered on copyright and, in a sense, the American individual. To simplify, which may pose issues later, copyright is a property right held by an individual or a single entity to control their creative works. It is more or less a concept that individuals have control over those works. However, the explosion of creative works based on existing works, YouTube etc..., endless copyright battles, and the issue of 'pirating' have made me wonder if a new generation of Americans has begun to change the notion that intellectual property is owned by society and not the individual.

I cannot say for certain, but I very much doubt many cases of copyright infringement are done out of hate for copyright, the idea that intellectual property is overvalued (I don't want to pay for the latest hit song), completely misunderstanding or lack of education on the subject of intellectual property (colleges are stressing copyright at orientations for first years), or the simple rebellious nature of youth. (Those are certainly possibilities on my mind.)

Instead, I am interested to know if there is a fundamental shift that the newest American individual is treating intellectual property as a common good/commodity freely available for use. This would constitute a very marked shift in the American individual which has historically valued their private property and acted to protect said property by instituting such legal protections as copyright.

*Just a loose idea that struck me after being up for almost 36 hours. Also please ignore spelling, grammatical errors. Thank you! *

House Resolution 4137

The contents of HR 4137 are interesting. Specifically the following amendment; SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION. The amendment, my interpretation, stipulates that colleges and universities take on the role of intellectual property police. In short, the amendment requires that colleges/universities provide information on copyright and the illegal downloading of intellectual property. It also says that colleges/universties should develop a to provide alternatives to illegal downloading of intellectual property and peer-to-peer sharing of protected materials. Further, it specifies that colleges/universities should plan to explore a technology-based deterrent to illegal downloading.

An interesting point is that the resolution seems to treat colleges/universities as both Internet end users and Internet service providers. This resolution seems to present a deviation from earlier cases of illegal downloading of intellectual property. Not only can the college/university loose funding with non-compliance, but the college/university has to provide an alternative to the illegal downloading of intellectual property. This sounds like a gift to the recording industry. Make colleges/universities subscribe to some service in order to prevent illegal downloads of intellectual property? Why not simply allow the college/university to stop illegal downloading of intellectual property by technology-based tools? Who will pay for the alternative downolad system too? That would be you and I the students and taxpayers.

A secod point that needs to be discussed is how the colleges/universities will distinguish between downloads protected by fair use and illegal downloads of intellectual property?

There are more questions than solutions in the resolutions current form. Perhaps if it makes it way to becoming a bill, the resolution will evolve to answer or solve some of these points here?