With all due respect to the author, I don't follow the logic of many of the claims in the article. > However, consider enforcing the Vaccine License: imagine e

With all due respect to the author, I don't follow the logic of many of the claims in the article. > However, consider enforcing the Vaccine License: imagine explaining to a judge that someone consented to be injected with vaccine by using a piece of software, and that they become copyright infringers by failing to get their shots. Lets imagine a too small child illegally entering a amusement park ride that has a minimum height requirement, and an accident happens. The park owner do not need to explain to a judge how the child agreed to inject growth hormones by entering the ride. The requirement does not specify the way of how an individual may achieve compliance, only the measurable state which compliance may be determined. The Vaccine License is no more complicated than licenses that specific that you can't ship software to countries which the US has an export ban in regard to encryption. The export ban specific a target demographic which the software can not be sold and/or use it. The Vaccine License specific a target demographic which may not copy it, and/or use it. The second argument brought up is that you can't sue a citizen of sovereign countries for behavior that their governments do. Again we can look at US export bans. you don't need to enforce the condition by suing people in those countries. It is generally enough that international companies has to follow the condition. The third argument is that since none of these licenses routinely require any royalties, the likely damages by infringers would be zero. That is not how damages get calculated. Existing royalties can be used as a guideline, but the common argument is to claim damages based on "industry standard". If a infringer publish unreleased work (say a copyrighted movie before release) it also has no existing royalties, but that hasn't stopped judges from issuing rather high damages. Context matter in court cases. The forth argument being that the term was illegal, improper or unenforceable. As someone who has been standing on that side of the fence in regard to EULAs and privacy policies I sincerely wish it was so. That basically leaves the last argument that enforcing licenses are too costly. I fully agree. Its like shoplifting which has less than 1% clearing rate. A lot of shop owners where I live have stopped even reporting thefts because they find the time doing the phone call is most costly than its worth. This is one place where personal principles has to weight more than financial sense. If someone steal your stuff, be that in a shop or a copyright, then you file a police report. It will likely not result in anything but it is better than nothing.