...you must be new here.

I disagree. The assumption is that each writer's time is of equal worth, and that the use of that time results in a product of equal value. If I spend an hour writing a postmodern analysis of the film Real Steel, and you spend an hour writing the Great American Novel that everyone loves, the thing you produced with that hour is more valuable than the thing I produced with that hour, making your hour worth more. If writing were like tightening nuts on bolts, then sure, all writers' time would be about equal. But, the only way you can really determine the value is by the interest audiences have in reading it.

Yes. Otherwise, there would be no possible way publishers would allow libraries to lend digital copies. Think about it: reverse the earlier question. What's the difference between a library that "lends" infinite, permanent digital copies of books for free to anyone with a login, and a pirate site? A library that can distribute ebooks with no limitations whatsoever is no different than a pirate site, essentially, and renders the idea of copyright moot. If you think that the very idea of copyright is in and of itself immoral or unethical, then that's probably fine with you, but even if you think authors should produce work without copyright in the hope and expectation of what would amount to donations from motivated readers, putting libraries in a position to distribute along such a model would just make it that much less likely that the original author would ever see a dime from readers.

Not only have I never received spam originating from a Gmail address, I might have seen spam make it to my inbox once in the past year. This is an address I've used for six years, and splattered all over the Interwebs. I also had three different Hotmail addresses, which I canceled to avoid spam.

Equally allegorical and equally convincing to me, I went through an episode with my mother-in-law where spam began to be sent from her email address to everyone, and I mean everyone, in her address book, multiple times per day. Now, she doesn't typically engage in risky Internet behavior, being the kind of person who is skeptical of ATMs because she's afraid they'll withdraw the money without actually giving it to her. Suffice to say it caused a bit of a problem. She's sticking with Hotmail because, as she says, "that's the address everyone has for her", against all advice to the contrary.

No moral or legal basis for being upset, huh?

"Hi, I noticed you'd left your front door unbolted, and your big-screen television is clearly visible from the street. Also, just to check, I climbed over your back fence and tried the back door, which you left unlocked. When I got inside and heard your dog barking I was a little worried, but it turns out he's really friendly. I've taken the liberty of writing up a list of suggestions for you to make your house more secure; it's taped on the front of your fridge. Incidentally, I just happen to sell alarm systems, if you're interested..."

"...companies are still trying to figure out how to receive dollars spent on games they make, when they are bought. Is that wrong? if so please tell me how."

Tell you how, Curt? Sure. Ever hear of used book stores? Music stores? Used DVDs? Pawn shops? Amazon.com? All of these sell used books, CDs, and DVDs/Blurays, and none of them turn a penny of that profit over to the original creators. Now do me a favor, Curt, and tell me why the game industry (not even the software industry as a whole) is special? Why should a consumer not feel like you're using DRM to squeeze as much profit out of your customers as possible, rather than to protect yourself from unethical behavior?

I own a PC, so, unfortunately, most of this argument is academic for me, now that digital distribution is the predominant model, and there's no drive on the part of distributors (Green Man Gaming notwithstanding) to develop a reselling mechanism. But for console owners, the whole "Gamestop and private resales are decimating the gaming industry" is the biggest pile I've ever heard.

My wife always asks me why I "throw away my vote" by voting for a third party. I ask her why she bothers to vote at all *unless* it's for a third party. Otherwise it's just picking between different flavors of vanilla.

Actually, I don't think I missed the point at all. Beyond actual distribution, one of the benefits I mentioned was promotion, or marketing. And, to be honest, the apocalyptic scenario you're describing is essentially what the "indie" movement is all about.

Rather than selling your rights to Sony and allowing them to handle management, marketing, and distribution in exchange for an upfront buyout and royalties, artists have the option to promote and distribute via social marketing tools such as Facebook, Twitter, and even email lists. All of which depend heavily on initial exposure, like live shows, to attract interested parties, or by proactively promoting yourself using existing connections, again through tools such as Twitter, Facebook, and even more conventional hype-building methods such as posters, fliers, and stickers.

That's what local musicians have been doing in my area for at least thirty years (obviously Twitter is more recent, but you get what I'm saying). There aren't many FM radio stations that cater to the independent music scene, true, but there are local stations that promote local music even while they play mass market, and local businesses want to be associated with local acts that are popular in the area *because* they are popular in the area.

Dealing with big record labels isn't the only possible model, it's just the one that dominated for the past forty years or so. Technology has, to some extent, made change possible. You're not going to have a Katy Perry sort of music scene where some label-generated act is groomed for pop radio from the outset and makes money hand over fist, but I'm ok with that. I'm much more comfortable "discovering" new music because I heard it in a local club or bar, and can actually go talk to the band.

Well, right now the middlemen are the publishers. When the Internet becomes the distribution medium, ISPs will become the middlemen.

Copyright isn't the issue. The issue is that technology limited the artist's ability to distribute work, and so the SOP became selling your own rights to your own work to a publisher in order to try and reach a larger audience, and, hopefully, make some money. In all art (music, film, lit), publishers became the gatekeepers because artists weren't able to compete on a logistic level.

Now that the Internet has, to some extent, changed that, we just need to find a model that works for everyone involved. As it stands, it's still very difficult to self-publish, or to offer your own content in such a way that you can still make money from it. Just from a writer's perspective, you can run an ad-based website (almost a television model), you can run a subscription-based website, you can ask for donations (good luck with that), you can put samples of your work up for free and offer either full-length works or entirely different works for sale on a case-by-case basis, but most of those options are pretty difficult to get off of the ground.

Contrast that with getting in bed with a publisher, who will give you money up front, royalties, and handle the marketing. You're still not going to make a mint (I know one writer who has been published frequently, can be found in most major bookstores, and has a book optioned, who is making about $35k a year), but it's not as risky.

If you get rid of copyright entirely, artists won't be able to afford to be artists. Like it or not, everybody's gotta eat. But if you develop a distribution model whereby artists can produce and maintain control of their products without having to sell their souls to a third party, you'll see more reasonable types of copyright licensing, and you'll see much more reasonable pricing.