[BoldlyDubious]

I like detailed criticism :-)

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

But what you desscibe (bolded) does currently constitute publishing, and would require re-defining all the terminology currently used for such things, or require that the purchaser also be given limited publishing rights. Profit has nothing to do with it.

So be it. There's nothing strange or heretic in granting limited publishing rights, if that's what the things I'm proposing must be called. We already have legal mechanisms like that in place today. Current license-based DRM systems are clearly not working (neither for publishers -who suffer piracy- nor for users -who get very limited rights). Moreover, these systems are doing a lot of damage to culture in general and to people's attitude towards legality (Average Joe and -apparently- Average Politician will probably realize that only in 15 or 20 years).

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

This points to another issue [...]- defining acceptable limits of copying. Some families have 10 or more people all under the same roof. Others may have only a handful, but spread out across the globe. You can build rights for lending into your system, but how / where should the limits be?

This is easy to address. I didn't talk of families. According to my proposal, you can give copies of the files you purchase to how many people you want, but YOU are (jointly) responsible for the things that happen to your files afterwards. If you start giving a copy of your media to that fishy-looking second cousin of your acquired aunt, you can already start to save for the moment the fines will arrive... The system seems to me to be inherently self-limiting.

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

My point is this - we can start by legally requiring that DRM systems have some sort of fallback plan.

In my opinion this is not sufficient. The only failsafe fallback plan is making consumers able to do their own backing up of their media, legally. Moreover, what happens if the media publisher folds is only part of the problem I wanted to address. The other part is that consumers are now suffering an extremely uneven balance of power against publishers, which the latter justify with a "fight against piracy" that is not even working.

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

Part of the problem is that the complaints I hear in real life are from people who want the convenience of, say, Amazon's system of storing their ebook purchases online and being able to read / sync on a plethora of devices, but they want to be able to do what they want with their ebooks. You can't have it both ways.

Why can't you? In my opinion, provided that users are prepared to "pay" for such freedom with an assumption of responsibility (so they need to care about what happens to their media files) there are no technical reason nor unreasonable risks for the publisher in letting us "have it both ways".[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

when someone purchases a Kindle / Nook / whathaveyou device or ebook for the first time, instead of a tiny link to a ToS that no one reads, an explanation of DRM and ecosystems and how they work (the features they add as well as the inherent restrictions thereof) should be presented. It doesn't have to be complicated or lengthy - that's what the ToS is for. My other suggested requirement is that DRM status be clearly listed on the product page of every single ebook.

I fully agree.

In my view, the problem of controlling illegal distribution of files that can be infinitely copied without loss cannot be managed by enforcing ever-harsher punishments against a vanishingly low percentage of the illegal distributors.
It must be tackled in a distributed and social way, by ensuring that each media buyer will want to act in such a way that illegal distribution is prevented.