Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
Yes, I think that most of us do the same.
This is in fact one of points that are still open. Would people want/like such a scheme?
However, beside legal sharing with family and friends, the main objective of my scheme is to stop having people's libraries hostage of closed, "walled garden" schemes that will let them stranded if the vendor and/or the publisher go out of business. In my view this is, in the long run, the key issue.
With respect to this, my "social DRM" proposal is able to defend itself pretty well, I think :-)
In fact, if ever some publishers will consider switching to such a scheme, they will know that if fines are too high and/or limitations to sharing are too restrictive people will simply strip the metadata and be free... exactly what happens today with DRM! So publishers will have to define fines and limitations that make people happy enough to leave the metadata in place. (Or, of course, they can refuse to consider such a scheme. And not benefit from its piracy-prevention properties.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the publishers don't have anything to do with the fines for copyright violations, that is set by Congress (or should I say the Lobbyists?).