Pressure groups in the UK are using the internet effectively to bring to bear on politicians. Civil disobedience can have impact – though I don’t advise it, as I mentioned to observer.

Discussing ideas and opinions with others – as we are doing now – can also have impact. But I do see you becoming what is called an opinion leader. For that reason I urge you to analyse the problems you see. This enable you to define the problem, not just hit at the apparent symptom.

And I’d say to you, as many authors have discovered, the internet has made the possibility of achieved visions much much easier than it has ever been.

There are so many positives in Australia. I urge you not to let the negatives discourage you.

Australia’s real problem is its position and population size. But it is also a popular place to emigrate to. Long before the internet, Rupert Murdoch emigrated first here, to the UK, and then to America. He sought to strut the world stage [and has succeeded. But he used the media made possible BY copyright.

Destroying copyright would not solve any of the problems you see.

But you are wrong that it controls the spread of information or knowledge. The rights are only to the form of words used by the author [as edited to make it more readable :-)]. In a few cases there are rights – either under copyright or through trade marks – to developed ideas like Harry Potter.

Hundreds, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of authors do indeed spread the same ideas as commercial works or hobby ones. What they may not do is use another author’s words. But if you talk of fanfic, that is one that falls right into those developed characters and worlds. That remains protected, and should do.

As you point out, though, it was certainly a true example of democratic process. The depth of discussion was impressive; even if politicians were rather poor at answering serious questions! But I was not talking of civil disobedience, but of the many forms of political process. Civil disobedience has its place in political reform, but it is hard on the protesters and their familes.

What I clearly have not demonstrated to your satisfaction, though I firmly believe it, is that copyright has played a major role in reform, in education, in news delivery, in choice of entertainment – most audio and visual formats rely heavily on books for their subjects. While there may be a complaint about prices, the truth is that prices have been reduced substantially since the thousands of pounds it originally cost for the Gutenberg Bible; today it would be equivalent to a million or so.

But I think your main complaint is about ditribution costs. And this is about paying for work done. Paying workers to put food on the table. Paying for the supply of vehicles – physical or digital – which transport books and other copyright material. The poor old author is just a tiny part of a highly successful and efficient industry. Yes, efficient believe it or not!

I can’t comment about Australian law, or your local industries.

I wasn’t referring to either of those.
Particularly the four counter example fail to back your argument on pretty much every single country including the US.

The fact that you misunderstood the application of the 1st law of sale isn’t country dependent either since most countries have a similar law with a different name and the exact application and consequences.

The definition of sale is also globally accepted as a full transfer of rights from the seller to the buyer in every single place of the world. Otherwise you call it renting, lending or something else. The fact that you claim that you’re selling without such happening doesn’t magically make it a sale.
Anyone can see the direct conflict between copyright and private property, just as its enforcement conflicts directly with the existence of private communication.

you’re grossly in error in so many ways that I can’t take the time to explain them to you.

Typical.
However you’re the one who backed your argument with 4 basic examples (actually applicable anywhere in the world) and were shown to be seriously misunderstanding how the law worked.
Not to mention you lacked knowledge of several basic concepts of economics.
All my were rightly backed by claims you failed to properly respond to even when you had the time.

So don’t throw it back at me. Not only were you unwilling to acknowledge your lack of knowledge despite being proven so with simple facts and examples, you were also actively ignoring those and replying with the same mistakes in subsequent replies!
Your “facts” which were just loose claims, were swiftly disproven by short explanations of actual law, backed with concrete facts.

Go away if you want but don’t throw your faults back at me when it’s your ilk that constantly fails at this level due to their dogmatic beliefs that end up making US waste our time with explanations that end up in deaf ears.

But.. by then it is far too late for me to try my visions. I judge my tech-skills are better than my rethorics and people-skills. And I guess the same is true for most would-be tech entrepreneurs.

How do you measure that? How to distinguish if someone is an entrepreneur or not? And which sources to trust? It is reasonable that if it is true, publishers in any country which entrepreneurs leave would not want it to be seen. And they would definitely not want it to be portrayed as if it had anything to do with laws which protect their own flows of income.

List price: $3.99
Sales: 2,000 copies (which is pretty good for an e-only release)
Retailer pays Author-Publisher: 70% = $2.80 per copy, or $5,600

Editing — by author
Line Editing — by author
Copyediting done at 1/4 of normal rates, with resulting cuts in quality: $1 per standard page (1250 characters or spaces), for 256 pages: $256
Cover Design: $300
Marketing: $100 in various minor campaigns plus 100 hours of marketing time by the author
Total expenses: $656.

Net contribution to Author support: $4,944

If the book took three drafts, and the first one took 250 hours, while the second and third took only 100 each, which is QUITE fast, then that book took 450 hours of writing time, and 550 hours in total. That’s $9 per hour — and he or she is doing better than normal. A lot better.

Bestsellers sell a lot more copies, but the upfront investment can easily pass a million dollars, in order to sell a million copies in print and ebook combined. And the overhead involved is significant when you start supporting that level of work.

NO ONE in book publishing gets wealthy, compared to what that level of talent and effort will earn in almost any other field.

Most young editors take second jobs to support their day job — because they love what they do. Bartending and waiting tables are common choices.

Authors often have day jobs to feed their families and pay their rent. A successful one can go part-time in their other job, and write full-time.

And yet, you folks are saying that no one can stop you from taking a copy of their work without paying.

Really — that’s where you want to draw your ethical line?

That if you CAN do something and your victim can’t stop you, it’s okay? I think the short version is Might Makes Right. And I’ve never been convinced by it.