“But it’s clearly the answer, and we’ll get there eventually.”

From reading the EFF blurb the scheme would be voluntary for both rights holders and users but I wonder if it would not lead to yet more confusion for consumers. You pay the sharing license fee and think that you can share music legally but you still would not have permission to share music from artists who have not joined the scheme and how do you identify who is in and who is out?

Even if it could be made to work, is voluntary licensing such as this really peer-to-peer? It would allow some P2P sharing amongst users but in my mind true peer-to-peer is when there is interaction and support between the producer and the consumer.

I believe individual licenses, between creator and consumer, are the true P2P answer and at the same time could allow broader sharing where appropriate.

If the system WAS opt-in from the users’ point of view then users could choose whether to use a more expensive VCL licensed ISP, or a cheaper one and risk prosecution by the RIAA. Somehow, I think everyone would go for the cheapies.

There is actually already one opt-in ISP called PlayLouderMSP I think. http://www.playloudermsp.com/thedifference.html

VCL – It’s not voluntary, it’s compulsory – weasel words to make folk think it’s optional.

There’s no free market – it’s up to a central committee (through which all the money goes) to decide how much music is worth, and presumably every artist’s work is valued the same, whether a fart from Madonna or ten year’s work capturing whale song by Joe Bloggs.

Taxation of music by the back-door. Music is not something people should be taxed for.

And how do you decide the difference between music and a capella, and a capella and speech, and speech and instructions, and instructions and software, etc.?