I think its a matter of culture. Take tipping for instance. Some cultures/countries have it, some don’t. Some countries, like mine allow businesses to impose a mandatory “tip” (‘service charge’) of 10% of the bill. Technically, the customers can refuse to pay it if the service is really bad, and sometimes, it does happen (i’ve done it a few times.)

Now, i don’t really know the history of tipping. But in cultures where it is present, like here, it is a case where people can choose not to pay, but still they do.

Paying for restaurant service and paying for software is not quite analogous, but this is something we should keep in mind. I do believe, however that this could become mainstream, like tipping.
Right now, only the ‘early adopters’ like doctorow are doing it, we are still in the early stages of experimentation, and this is precisely why such innovations, including p2p , should not be shut down, nevermind the broad powers of the INDUCE act.

my first post here! =)

One thing that is not clear to me is why current law is inadequate. Since you seem to be a very reasonable voice for that side of the fence, perhaps you could enlighten me on that subject.

And I don’t buy into the “end users shouldn’t be sued” argument. The analogy to highway patrol and speeding tickets elucidates my reasoning: it is and SHOULD be the DRIVER who gets the ticket, not the auto manufacturer.

I consider this to be an almost basic tenet of liability, and I’ve yet to hear an argument that contravenes it. The closest I’ve heard is the ridiculous “little children are being heckled into illegally downloading music” crap that’s being bandied about by the lobbyists, which rises to the level of fiction. As if there were pushers on every street corner forcing KaZaA installs on unsuspecting teenage passers-by. Everyone who installs P2P software and uses it to download Britney Spears knows what he’s doing and probably prefers it. Period.

The traditional consequence for stealing is that you compensate for the damage you cause and possibly suffer some additional punishment. In cases where the mere threat of this is not sufficiently deterrent, the community affected increases enforcement of the rule until the deterrency factor reaches comfortable levels. I see no reason why this theory won’t work for the RIAA.

Number 1. You said your software concerned streaming/playing music over the internet. That is a very crowded market.
Part of what you speak of involves perception of a reasonable fee and perception of a threat of enforcement. Are you sueing anyone? What is the fee for your work? and how many comparable works exist with lower or no fee? These are questions whose answers affect the rate of payment.

“Furthermore, participation by rightsholders is also optional in the system that you are advocating. That means that end-users who actually do pay for this license would still be liable to rightsholders who opted out of the system.”

under the proposition, the government assures protection for people who pay the fees. rightsholders are invited to opt in, but are not entitled to their piece of the pie if they do not by sueing people.

But in all honesty we are over 100 posts and quite frankly i am going to wander off because im eating up my time and yours, but hopefully not the good mr Boucher’s. =)

I do apologize if you are skeptical, but it is far easier to entice ants, dogs, or people with reward and punishment rather than simply punishment alone.

The collective license gives the ants reason to move themselves all at once, leaving those who are unreasonable and dont want to move much easier game for the tweasers =).

“self regulation” in filesharing is not working in aggregate because content creators and rightsholders have not given them an adequate solution for compensation.

Nobody wants drm ridden files that cost as much as a cd but are half the quality, people will just buy cds instead.

These creators have failed to preserve the open standards of p2p in their solutions, which is why people ignore them.

Wouldn’t it faster and easier just to extend IP notions to the intentional representation inside of the brain and require licenses (and DRM) for that as well? Apparently we have that – for common sense – and most congressmen haven’t bothered to download.

I’ve got an idea: how about an amendment to this act, that would require that the “intentional inducement” must be proven through evidence that the product was designed with the primary purpose of infringing copyright (as described in …).

Note that as fair use is not infringing copyright, the primary purpose of enhancing fair use would not be infringing.

“I am of the opinion that a solution that hinges on voluntary participation by almost all rightsholders, and voluntary payment from almost all downloaders is simply a non-starter.”

many “sensibility laws” such as speed limits and copyright laws depend heavily on self enforcement. While not rigidly obeyed all the time, you see very few people simply burying the needle everywhere they go all the time. You also dont see laws being passed to insure speed limits are obeyed by placing fuel limiters and “highway rights management” in people’s cars. If anything, such concepts should be applied first to vehicles because they are rolling weapons.

I honestly hope you have more faith in the public, because i do.