I posted this on the mailing list, but it could use some more exposure:
As I proposed in the Swedish forums, by using the public opinion that artists has a right to receive money maybe it can be successfully suggested that the underlying principle of copyright shouldn't be a right to control just a right to get paid.
That is, instead of arguing for a shorter term of control, keep the current term but argue for a shift from a right to control to a right to get paid. This might be a equally bad system from an economic perspective, but it might be a plausible paradigmatic change in policy to demand royalties rather than abstinence.
The current system of contracts and right arrangements would be kept intact except for the paradigmatic change of what these rights constitute. Usage (and thus file sharing) would be free because any percentage out of nothing is still nothing. But usage for financial gain (i.e. advertising based radio) would require royalties to be paid to the rights holder. The freedom movement gets most of the requested freedoms, the generall public get to keep its current view of art and wealth distribution and the current institutions for rights management get to keep doing whatever it is they are doing.
Once this policy is in place the discussion about the relative efficiency of the system should become much easier as the philosophical arguments about property rights and such would loose their grip over the debate.