[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

Steve, you know the difference between steal REAL goods and make electronic copies of files, come on!
I'm the first to put in jail thieves!!!!

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

The only way to definitely stop what you call "piracy" and what millions of people call "fair use" [and what I call strife of greeds] is to have an Authority knowing and controlling what everybody reads, watches and listens. And even if it's done with the best of non invasive DRM and with the purest of intentions, it's a damage for democracy, however you call it.

"fair" is a two-sided word. And from my point of view, to make it work one way is a contradiction.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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...

I can.
I have actual numbers in mind.
I know how much make people pay, and how much authors get.
Of course, it all can work only with a tracking system that can count (anonymously) the number of different users accessing content (no longer "buying books", in case of digital editions, accessing content is the key).

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

In my country, about 70% of MS Office instances are pirated, and I suspect with Photoshop is even worse.
How do you get them without breaking democracy rules? You cannot search homes without a good reason, and "he bought a PC" is not good enough.... You cannot even send trojans in private computers to search for cracked software...
I don't call it a system that works well...

And it's really really UNfair to make people pay per-copy when a copy doesn't have a cost and an actual value, like the case of ebooks.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

I don't think DRM's purpose is to prevent theft. It'd be the biggest failure in History of mankind.
First of all, because "copy" is not "steal".

But let's pass on it, and let's call "extorsion" the demand to be paid. Or, at least I'll do: I put myself in a neutral position between authors and pirates, so I use the words: "use" and "remuneration" or "theft" and "extorsion", just to be honest.
OK, I know. By now the Law is with authors, but laws are not "fair" by definition....

We're all on the same side, according to two basic principles:

1. Authors HAVE to be remunerated for their work and ideas, and proportionally to their skill
2. People HAVE the right to read everything, without censorship (at least for adults), and regardless for their wealth.

Present system (the same since XVIII century) have long proved to be inefficient with the new technologies.
And I suppose you too agree with it.

You sell books for 2$ each.
But will you be happy if Donald Trump pays 200$ for his copy and 98 schoolboys share other 98 copies over P2P networks?

I suppose you are.

The kids put some work in the copy process, you didn't. Will you pay them, for their work?