I stated the exchange of those things is being restricted by non-human entities which have no desire for the furtherance of our species, only the furtherance of themselves. And they are pushing for further restrictions of those exchanges.
Over simplification muddies the point, of course I can still exchange some of those things, but by no means all and some of those things only if I have paid for the right to possess a copy of them. And even if I have the right of possession according to current law I cannot continue exchanging it. I only have the right to possess it, and barely at that. When you bought your last piece of music did it come with a piece of paper allowing you access to that music forever? No it did not, you cannot go back to the sony site and demand a fresh copy of it. Also according to the DMCA if it contains copy protection you cannot even make a backup copy of it to ensure your continued access.

I was not lamenting where we are so much, as where we are headed. Already my right to access and exchange those things I mentioned is heavily restricted, to the point of contradiction. If this is where we are now, are you under the assumption that the restrictiveness and policing of exchange is not going to go any further? ACTA is the perfect example that there are already talks in the works to ensure that you cannot exchange anything unless it is acceptable to big business the gov't and various religious groups.

Use your creativity to continue to create, do not expect your creations to pay you. They cannot. You are worth money, your abilities and talents coupled with learned skills (which you stole/infringed upon/copied from/built upon, from those before you) will make you money.
If you wanna be real specific here you go;
You are a musician, the only tangible thing you can sell is your skill as a musician. Your music is an expression of that talent/skill. If you want to make money play your music for people and get paid. If you want to sell a recording of what you did to someone, then you are no longer selling your talent/skill only a physical item which contains a representation of your expression of your talent. Since all you've done in that instance is make a physical item then that is what you can sell. If your music did something, like my dishes, or solved world hunger then it would have a value unto itself. As it is though the only thing of value there is the physical item.
To sum up, you can sell yourself and your talents as a service. Your abilities, talents and creativity themselves cannot be sold unless you are providing them in person.
I always liked this example, a live show is sold as an event. People purchase the right to attend that event. The recording of that event is simply a memory of history. Anyone attending that event could recount the details of that event to others and still not be able to fully explain what it was like as an experience. The artist counts on the fact that he can do something no one else can, and that recordings or a recounting of memories of that event will never measure up to the actual experience of the event. Therefore its obvious what is being sold, him coupled with his abilities. Not pale representations of his expression of creativity.

A study group of 200 in set conditions. Sounds to me like 1 in 40 people are more comfortable while driving and are capable of concentration on other things. I fail to see how this proves cell phones are not a distraction from driving for a small percentage of people. Perhaps it would have been better to say;
Those more comfortable with driving as a task, do better when having to perform another task, under set conditions.
For I do not believe for a second that these people are going to retain their 'supertasking' ability in an emergency. The whole idea behind not allowing cell phones while driving has more to do with emergency situations then running a red cause you're a jackass and are distracted easily. Any lapse in concentration from driving (changing radio station, conversing with passenger, looking at scenery) has been proven to cause accidents. Why? The unexpected. If your full attention is not on the road, pedestrians, other vehicles, and things directly pertaining to the task of driving, you absolutely will miss something one day, and you absolutely will pay for it with injury and possible fatality.

Do you want to further your species progress? Or just your own? If its the bigger picture you care about then you would want others to take your work and build upon it. It would leave you with a sense of pride to know that your work contributed to the progress of your fellow man. The intent of copyright is to protect, not you the creator, but guarantee a revenue stream for the entity acting as the distributor. If all you can see are dollar signs and perceived losses (not actual) then your question holds true, and you are simply a wallet that had a burst of inspiration.
It is very telling that even when granted a temporary monopoly an entity can grow without check or balance. To imagine that temporary monopolies are somehow less damaging than permanent ones is a fallacy. Dis-proven beyond a doubt by the way big media distributors (not creators, creators love creating, payment is a side benefit) have fought tooth and nail to extend and protect said monopolies.
To answer your question then, I have a question. Is it just of you to create something and then carefully segregate who has access to your creative work based on their ability to pay you 'ad infinitum'? 'Cause after your 80-100 year lifespan is up all you can hope is that you've left something behind of yourself that furthers the species. Otherwise you were just a waste of skin and food.

It is heart wrenching to see where this is going. We are selling our future cultural heritage to entities which have no desire to preserve it, only to control it till it no longer makes them money and then assault those who attempt to enjoy it after that.
The single reason our species has made it this far is through the free exchange of ideas, art, theory, process, and emotion. To see that we have denied our history and choose to err on the side of greed is terrible indeed.
To those naysayers out there that believe this series of events in the last ten years, regarding copyright and patent, is healthy for our society; Really? You truly and honestly believe this is for the betterment of our species? Really?

That's the thing, even what you 'meant' is totally wrong. If you dont know what artificial scarcity is go look it up. Now ask yourself if you are okay with purchasing a physical item that you do not own. Then ponder what it would be like if Sony claimed ownership of all images & sounds stored by your brain that pertained to copyrighted works they 'own'. Does that mean when you share a memory with someone else of a copyrighted work you are infringing? Now the final thing to think about, what on earth did you purchase with that money you gave to them? Was it the right to listen or watch something based on their criteria? If you have not 'leased' a copyrighted work, do you have the right to use your ears and listen to it? Since even your comment stated that they only sell you rights to access something, what exactly are you telling us to go do? Since I can never possess that item in actuality at what point is my want of said item fulfilled? Also, pull your head outta the clouds, that time you made a 'mix-tape' was just as illegal as all this downloading and uploading, your attempt to pretend you are somehow on the moral high ground is transparent and ill thought out.

That Times story is incredibly self serving for 'Yelp'. The questions asked are phrased in ways so that the answer can only be positive to or about 'Yelp'. Furthermore this reads more like an informational advertisement than actual reporting. Im kinda disappointed that I wasted my time reading the f***ing article, since it offered no information whatsoever about why their salesmen have had the finger pointed at them, nor does it even directly inquire what their 'sales' campaign actually involves. BS story IMHO

So this guys proof is "I don't get the names of people affected, just figures, and I saw the several of the people had met sexual partners through these sites," he said Which means that facebook is the cause of an increase in syphilis? Or maybe its this statement he made "Social networking sites are making it easier for people to meet up for casual sex," Prof. Peter Kelly, director of pubic health in Teesside, told the paper. "There has been a fourfold increase in the number of syphilis cases detected, with more young women being affected." Hmmm seems to me hes just made a bunch of inflammatory statements about something he has no data, proof, or clarity about. So the story is, Public Health officer makes wild claims about facebook use and casual sex, when he should have just made a statement about using condoms. Why is this being considered as news? Why wasnt this story vetted properly?

I wasn't so much thinking specifically of Polygraphs and their ilk, but rather the basis' of these systems of detection. There are voice stress detectors and well trained individuals as well, but they all require a base of standard human responses, altered slightly to your specific responses. It seems to me that there is a whole slew of individuals out there whom the 'standard human response' does not apply. If that is the case then although lie detection is not legally viable, its fairly wide usage by the police (for one) should be halted immediately. Some businesses will ask you to take a lie detection test for issues of theft and wrongdoing, you can refuse obviously, but the one person who is guilty would never even be suspected if the study is correct. Point being even if it is used as a pointer or a narrower of suspects, those usages are totally suspect as well.

Wouldn't this mean that depending on your social, financial, or business stature, all lie detections systems will not work properly? Do not lie detection systems rely on some basic similarities in physiological human response to achieve their goal?

For the instant we do find a substitute for war (video games/vr games) the more aggressive and violent of us will no longer be interested, as much as they were, in killing each other. Reminds me of Full Metal Jacket how the angry aggressive war-mongering drinkers hated the chilled out potheads cause they didn't wanna fight anymore. Video Games are a real threat people, can you imagine if those young minds actually had a clearer idea of what war was really like?

Why shouldn't they? For the first time in history we have the ability to reach every single citizen in an extremely timely manner. Not only that but we have complicated enough adding machines and databases to hold and collate all that data. Which means you could have the citizenries opinion on any matter in about a week. So where is the problem with the people (who are the government) voting on every single decision that affects them. The whole point of representatives was it would take too long to get decisions from everyone because of distance and communications shortcomings. Now that those shortfalls no longer exist, the government should be asking each and every one of us what we think. The lazyness of americans demands that the problem of decision making be taken from their hands (courts, special interest and lobbying groups, state representatives), that doesnt change the fact that all decisions made by their government are their decisions.

South Africa was part of the British Empire or the UK as it has become now. What exactly is your point again?