I'm forever fascinated with copyright law. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution empowers Congress "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Note the words useful, exclusive and especially, limited. I'm not going to go into a dissertation about how the changes in copyright law in the United States I believe is contrary to the original intent.
I can't find it presently, but there was a recent story about a guy who played on the original sessions for the Beatles' album Revolver (1966) and that his payments would end soon because British copyright law's term will have ended. It was suggested that Britain might seek a copyright law similar to that currently employed by the United States. To which I only have five words to say: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
Judge Rules Facts Are Not Copyright-Protected - this re: two movies about the 1970 plane crash that killed the Marshall University football team.
Hasbro Drops Lawsuit Against Makers of Scrabulous - R.J. Softwares won't use the term "Scrabulous" and made changes to the game after the lawsuit had been filed.
Canadian Copyright Board Increases Tax on Blank Compact Disks- from 21 cents to 29 cents.
In each of these cases, I feel that common sense has won out.
Then there was this situation: $900 Million Copyright Suit Filed Over Illegal Use of Subscription Web Site I don't want to say it's a frivolous lawsuit, since clearly harm was done to the copyright holder, about $5000 in fees. But to get from $5K to nearly a billion dollars is a circuitous argument that practically begs for tort reform, something I generally think an overstated argument.