Copyright ostensibly exists for similar reasons to patents, that is to encourage creative endeavours among the population. The reality is of course exactly opposed to this, worsened by the illegal and unreasonable extension of copyright terms to far past a human lifespan. As a creative individual, I despise copyright and would prefer it be abolished; those disadvantages of lacking copyleft are made less severe by then simply being able to take and redistribute source code someone would prefer stay private, with the actual obtaining still likely being illegal, but irrelevant.
By the term ``copyright ghettos'' I refer to the common phenomenon of a corporation laying claims to any and everything it comes into contact with; this is a disgusting practice which seeks to distance citizens from each other and further empower the corporation. Copyright is implicit in many acts of creation and these corporations successfully siphon up an unjust amount of licenses to such, and yet the normal citizenry finds issues in cooperation; the normal citizens are collected into a ghetto in which they are separated and the corporation finds a seemingly endless set of licenses with which it may employ as it pleases. The phenomenon alone is more than enough to dispell the idea of copyright empowering the average citizen and creator against those who would infringe on it. If one finds his copyright infringed by such corporations, even after avoiding this nonsense, there's little recourse for correction.
The nonsense reminds me of the wife of that Romanian dictator Ceausescu, Elena, and how she received placement on the authors list of scientific papers she'd had naught to do with; it's entirely within possibility we may someday see people close to these parasitic corporations given attribution to the work of others' in a similar way. Corporations already use such collected licenses in advertisement material and treat this as perfectly just.
Such collection also happens with photographs and ostensibly-personal surveillance systems. I exist in a time in which most people I know may legally have their likeness used by a corporation, with no greater justification than a photograph of them has been uploaded; my own likeness is certainly also a part of this, through no action of my own. Such things are regularly used for advertisements, and other filth. For illegal photographs, the normal citizenry is typically barred from owning them for any reason and in any capacity, yet they're also legally used to create filters, by corporations. I wonder about the nature of these filters and what hidden things they also certainly prevent.
It's central to the myth of copyright in the United States that the common man might use power given to him by the government to better himself even above those currently his betters; this is destroyed by a great many employers stripping employees of their copyright, even with minimum wage work. What is it but slavery when a man works for not enough to sustain himself yet his other work is merely to be given to his employer to be bastardized, destroyed, or anything else in the pursuit of making his employer slightly more wealthy? This robs people of their ability to improve their standing and may cause otherwise creative people to cease with their endeavours, for want of not seeing it be ruined.
It's true this doesn't affect average citizens, who largely entirely ignore such copyright concerns. In this, it's mostly another weapon against the citizens who are politically inconvenient or dare to try to make money on their own.
I wonder if this future holds ever greater expansion of copyright ghettos. I wonder if even beneign use of corporate services, such as riding a bus, will carry with it a license grant to the copyright held by the user. It's interesting, when capitalism and communism inevitably reach similar results.