I liked what RadioHead did with "pay what you can afford" even if that is nothing. If we could get people to operate on the 'Honor' system it would be great, but always people will game it. Personally, I don't mind, but I am sure many others do. I operate on the principle that most people (I hate generalizingm but there you go... Trump is having an effect on me) are basically 'good'. There will always be a minority that are not... but I apply a "Bell Curve" model to these things... minority very 'bad'... majority decent folk.... another minority very 'good'.

My take is simply if something has a commercial value in the marketplace, and you or I are the creators, then we deserve to be compensated on some level for being the innovators/bringing the idea to market/ time/labor/energy.

I believe the market itself should determine the level of compensation, and why I love what is happening here on Steemit. How do we apply a fair copyright? I forget the philosopher off hand, but he said the individual's rights should be respected first and foremost, except where the rights of the greater community or majority should come first. That the greater good should take precedence over the individual good.

I believe 'principle' models such as Credit Unions, Co-operatives and fellowships such as A.A. afford us templates of what could work successfully on a universal scale, if the majority were willing to adopt such principles.

Definitely a topic worth many posts. I would look forward to reading yours. I know there are even variations on the "Creative Commons" licence, accredited or non-accredited, and what is happening presently in the musical sphere and the U.S. courts as we exhaust purely "original" ideas re: Led Zeppelin, Robin Thicke/Pharell, and now Ed Sheeran is very interesting for the future.
Best for now, David B.