[Steven Lyle Jordan]

So many points... so little time. So, from the top:

Originally Posted by Format C:

You're right 100%.
But I see thousands of people actually getting them for free, not crying.

Of course they're not crying... they're not getting caught.

Originally Posted by Format C:

And I see also that there's no way to stop them without hurting democracy.
And honestly, that's what I fear most.

If I walk into a department store and load up on clothes and other goodies, I can't just walk out with them. I am watched by cameras, there are plainclothes security personnel watching me, and a product-tag detector at the door, making sure I do not leave without paying. If I pay with a credit card, the cashier will ask to see verifiable ID before accepting my card. And if I decide not to pay... I can walk out, with no fear of reprisal from any of those elements.

By most of the definitions of a pirate, this is "hurting democracy." By my definition, it is smart business sense, and not hurting anyone or anything, especially democracy.

All we're talking about is controls to keep people from being ripped off. We're not talking about nuking the world over a stray e-book.

Originally Posted by Format C:

1. There has to be a limit to the earnings for the single author/creator
2. Every user of the content have to pay for access that content
3. Electronic digital editions cannot be paid per copy; hardcopies (CD, DVD, pbook, LP, whatever...) can be sold like they are now.

In order for #1 and #2 to work, you might as well disconnect the author from the payments, and just give him a set grant up-front for producing a book. This is because people will always be upset if they were among the ones who had to pay for a book, but at a certain point, others behind them got it for free. So the government is likely paying them a set amount, and taking it out of the entire population (including those who did not read it) through taxes. Making someone pay for something they did not read is not as fair as making those who read it pay for it.

I'm not personally opposed to a grant system. But I wouldn't want to be part of the group having to decide what the proper grant payment should be...

Regarding #3, there are actually a number of software vendors that have made pay-per-copy work... Microsoft and Adobe, for instance. I'm not saying every manufacturer should follow their model... just that there are ways to do it, it's not impossible. And if consumers refuse to pay for the things they get, we're likely to see one of them applied to everything by producers who do not want to be ripped off... or we'll see a loss of content. So it's up to consumers to "do the right thing," and secure the products they want the way they want them.

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, and I have as a goal to get money without working but how is this relevant? A lot if not most of great literature has been produced without money stimulation. So why do you believe that control through market is best for producing great literature? The thing I object to is your assumption that there is only one solution and then you build that into the goal and claim that this is the goal some entity have.

You are quite literally thinking of another century... where the population of this planet numbered in the millions, not billions, and it was a lot easier to live well by your own means (farm, steal, mooch or panhandle), and not depend on others' resources to help you get by. That world is not relevant. I can only say that "writing for nothing" is simply not realistic for the majority of the population anymore. That ship has sailed, too late to swim for it. Now boarding: The 21st Century limited. All aboard.

Originally Posted by tompe

Fairness have never been the goal at least not for copyright. But who are these entities you are talking about that have this fairness goal?

Fairness to the creator was the sole original goal of copyright. Period. That fairness was engineered so that creators would not be afraid to create, and so you could benefit from their creations... so it's fair to you, too. Tompe, until you can explain to me how it is fair to ME to create something with zero compensation, and let anyone enjoy the fruits of my labors without paying me for them, we can move past this fairness discussion.

Originally Posted by Barcey

I agree. The goal of the digital rights management should be to identify if it's a legal copy or not.

Well, no... there's no point in doing that if there is no way to take action. DRM's only purpose is to guarantee payment for/prevent theft of a product.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I'm not talking about paying up front. I'm talking about reading so much of the book and then having to pay to unlock the rest of it.

Sorry, I didn't see where that was implied by the earlier post. Of course, if you know when you get the book that you'll have to pay to finish it, it's of no consequence... only if you are fooled into thinking it's free, then finding out later you'll have to pay to finish, is it "bad form."