Being reduced to pure dependence on goodwill when every other player in the economic system can also depend on the force of law (e.g. shopkeepers and shoplifting) reduces the victims - and I do mean victims - to the state of fourth class citizens.

I agree, fully, that the technical reasons for this shift are irreversible. I agree, too, that the analog copyright based models dating back to the 18th century have become unsuitable in the 21st. And that's why we need to think long and hard about artists rights as such, and what we're going to do to assure that they have the same level of commercial respect and dignity that accrues to those who provide goods and services with marginal costs greater than zero - especially when artist's fixed costs remain non-trivial.

That starts with taking a critical look at remarks like yours. "Look at me! I'm so supportive! Aren't you grateful? You better be fucking grateful." I'm sorry, that's not respect. That's just you being a conceited prick. Moreover, your willingness to stop paying "if you're displeased" (while presumably continuing to read) indicates that it was never respect for the law or fair exchange that motivated you.

If your heart were truly in the right place you'd pay because you made a copy, and for no other reason. And if you didn't want to pay - for whatever reason - then you wouldn't make the copy. I recognize that we have no way to implement an exchange that enforces this norm at the present time. And I recognize that goodwill is the only thing artists can depend on for the foreseeable future. But let's stop pretending that this isn't a very one-sided arrangement. And lets stop pretending that people can take advantage of a one-sided situation and keep their hands clean. I'm sorry, but they just can't. And unless you're actively looking for a system that both sides view as fair, you're not the mensch you think you are.

Also, if you're not willing to pay for what's provided because you MUST pay, then stop calling yourself a customer. Customers pay. They pay every time. And they pay to get what they want because that's how they get what they want. They don't make payment a secondary, incidental exchange based on some extraneous factor, like whether or not the provider expressed enough slobbering gratitude for the "customer's" generosity. Unless we're discussing gifts, generosity shouldn't enter the picture. I know that when I pay for groceries, generosity isn't what motivates me.

I'll clue you in. If generosity and "a desire to support artists" is what motivates you, then what you're describing is no longer a commercial transaction. It's an act of patronage. I'm not saying that patronage is necessarily bad, but be honest enough to admit that's what's happening, and stop pretending you're a customer when, in reality, you're no such thing. Like everyone else, you take what you want. Unlike most, you make a donation. That's appreciated. But it would be appreciated even more if you were honest about what it is, and what it means for people to be in a situation that is entirely dependent on goodwill.

If you're really concerned with the status and well-being of artists, stop saying "your reduced status is just the way it is and you should be grateful for what little you've got left" and start asking "what would restore a measure of genuine equality to this situation?"