That said, please explain[] just how an author "can still make a living" without some form of copy-protection. See: the entire history of books before computer

That said, please explain[] just how an author "can still make a living" without some form of copy-protection. See: the entire history of books before computers. See: Doctorow's Little Brother, which was distributed freely and still sold so well it went on the NYT's best seller list. eta []: and I genuinely mean: Just HOW should public policy look in order to provide some form of artistic protection for creators? It's easy to sit around and say "copyright is broken" (and I'd largely agree!) It's less easy to say what it might/ought become. The law shouldn't guarantee you a business model under actual capitalism or better systems. "We're going to enforce with a military your right to a business model" is an inherently silly proposal. It makes more sense to guarantee everyone has enough to live off of, which is something the state is already capable of, and something the best capitalist and socialist economists are advocates of. Beyond that, if you're looking for a less-radical proposal: shorten the copyright period. The NEL didn't have anything that was five years old or younger on it. Current copyright terms are insane and against the common good in every sense of the word.