The article seems confused, or stuck in obsolete ways of thinking. The real purpose is not to pay for 'books'. It is not to 'protect' author's 'rights. It is n

The article seems confused, or stuck in obsolete ways of thinking. The real purpose is not to pay for 'books'. It is not to 'protect' author's 'rights. It is not to have 'ownership. The purpose here is to pay for production of books. Production does not essentially depend on 'ownership' or 'rights' at all. Books are data. You do not 'own' data in the normal sense. It is an abundance, it is infinitely copyable. Gluing together the ideas of books and ownership no longer makes much sense. And similarly for 'rights': they were a practical means of funding production in a material world, but now they are not. It is somewhat reasonable to observe the apparent lack of confirmed business model for funding book production in an internet world. But the undertone that we are slipping into doom and dread is funny when you think about it. Are we losing something? Has the internet taken something away? No, it has given us something. We do not have less now, we have more. So, we need new ways to organise ourselves and production. Why is that such an impossible thing to imagine? We can build the internet, but we cannot re-arrange what we do a little? We should have at least an iota of confidence in human capability. You hardly even need optimism: simply look around. We have had at least a decade of 'piracy' of music. Oh no! Surely the world must have collapsed! Ask yourself: do you have less music to enjoy now than before? I very much doubt it. There is more music now than ever. This whole 'end of the world' fantasy is largely just industry FUD. Stop perpetuating it, and instead celebrate the internet and think of ways to use it to do more than before.