I don't know any person who still uses USB flash drives. Everyone I know, including I, uses SD or SDHC memory cards. These are readable on all devices (mobile phone, PDA, e-ink e-reader, netbook, laptop; oh and I don't own a PC!). USB drives can only be used with computers, not with e-readers or PDAs, so what's the use of them?

If I read a legal paper and electronic copy of your book for free (the electronic one must be readable on my 6" e-ink gadget) and I like it, and then you release the book as public domain or GFDL 1.2 but not 1.3 or later versions (but if the book is very great then I may settle with Creative Commons or other similar licences as well), then I could pay you whatever you want for the book, as long as what you want does not exceed a monetary amount I have in mind right now and aren't going to tell you. In short: You don't need to have copyright, you don't need to force people to support you for writing books. If your books are good, people will come to you to support you without any laws, copyright, or other things.

The best e-reader I have ever seen is BeBook.

Have you tried gobby?

After university I had some interviews with some software houses for employment, mostly because it was "the normal thing to do", but I didn't like their working environment. I wanted to work from home but they didn't agree, and the salary wasn't good. So, I refused to be employed and instead started my own software business which is very successful, and I have three collegues from my university. I cannot understand why other people go to become employees for a boss when they can start their own business. I would expect other graduates like me to go to interviews after university because "it's the normal thing to do", but I cannot imagine in what terrible situation one must be to actually agree to become employed for someone else.

I will give up my privacy the moment everyone else does it. But if I am asked to give up my privacy while others retain it, then it's a screw up.

Copyright is codified as a law. From the moment something is codified as a law, it really does not matter whether it is ethical or not. The only thing that matters is whether you wish to remain legal or not, and before taking the stupid decision to not follow the law you must consider your power in relation with your government. They have an army and a police force to enforce their laws. If you are their citizen, then chances are that you could be liquidated quickly in case they get angry with you.

Copyright sets a way to copy legally. You just have to ask permission from the copyright holder. So, in theory everything is easy, you just email the copyright holder and depending on the anwer you know what you can do. But in practice it's extremely hard, because a copyrighted work may be orphaned or its copyright holder may be too stubbornly risk-averse to allow distribution even though such distribution would not damage their income.

Therefore, the copyright law seems to create some practical difficulties in using orphaned works or in getting permission from irrational copyright holders. This means that the law should be fixed.

In democratic societies your government is elected by you, so you have an easy way to change the law. Just find a politician that agrees to change the laws according to your liking and vote for them. If there is no such politician, just set up yourself as an independent candidate or start your own political party.

Of course, doing all that may not sound easy, but who told you that life is easy?

But just because changing the law is hard does not mean that you should not follow it, because such an action would mean that you would be considered a criminal by the legal system. So, it really is much better to fight this through politics and elections rather than through a cat-and-mouse game that could cost you your life or your freedom. Even if you consider the law unethical, you must still follow it because you are a citizen and bound by the laws of your jurisdiction.