Despite people speeding every day, laws on that just remain unchanged. In fact, in the past decades, cameras have been installed on roads to make enforcement of the law easier.

The printing press is another example of a technology that just never was de-regulated. You’re still not allowed to print someone elses writings without their permission.

There are few laws banning encryption, but there are laws that state certain circumstances where someone is obliged to give up the key:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law

Law is written to define acceptable limits on technology.
And as you point out, some of those laws are written to prevent theft, (i.e to protect the property and rights of others.)

And yet speeding is so endemic even asking people on a highway to abide by a steady 60 mph is futile. In reality, everyone follows the traffic flow, ignoring whatever the law states. That there is a law about this at all, the same way there is for any of your other examples is because the result of violation are life and limb, intrusion, burglary or theft.

Your example on encryption is just…bad. To date there is only one nation in the western world limiting encryption and that one in flagrant violation of both common sense and civil rights.

In short, your comparisons lack relevance. Especially given that technology forced all previously existing laws to change.

“Laws are not written at the mercy of technology, laws are written to define the limts of what the allowable use of a technology is.”

When technology changes, so does law. And when the law changes in order to “limit” the use of technology impacts ordinary behavior, the law is ignored until it is changed.

Shall we get back on track now?

Certain laws, such as information control (such as copyright) or a ban on encryption, can only work when technological progress is below a certain treshold. Once that treshold is passed, the law must change as it is no longer either sensible nor enforceable within reason.

“What world do you live in where this isn’t the case?”

Well, I don’t live in the world described by your straw manning. I DO live in a world where when technology changes to allow natural human behavior to be expressed, the law must follow suit.

Meaning everyone who needs access to medicine can have it, but as is the case with bottled water and luxury cars, the access is less convenient and carries less status than the branded option.

This, by the way, is status quo for true generics which today still stand as major cash cows for brand labels. There are hundreds of generic cheap NSAIDS out there and yet the main sellers are still the more expensive brands.

Without intellectual property protection, only the costs remain for the innovator. The innovation’s profits, on the other hand, are not the private property of the “greedy” innovator but are public, i.e. they are socialized.

Cars aren’t allowed to drive as fast as they can.
You’re not allowed to randomly transmit anything on just any radio frequency.
You’re not allowed to bypass the electrical company and hook yourself up to the grid.
Most places these days have outlawed hacking into computers and stealing information.
There are laws in place regulating aspects of encryption.
Fire (the first technology?) is regulated

Most any technology you can think of has some kind of regulation in place. Laws are not written at the mercy of technology, laws are written to define the limts of what the allowable use of a technology is.
What world do you live in where this isn’t the case?

Copyright lasts for 80+ years, for now. Expect the entertainment industry, Disney in particular, to be back begging for longer copyright terms in the very near future. And with the way the courts and government work in the US, they’ll probably get it. Life + 100 years! Actually, I keep expecting them to ask for permanent copyright that never expires. They’ll ask for it sooner or later, the only question is when…