That's an awfully fuzzy definition of what's acceptable and what's not for something being dealt with at a political level. > while continuing to make that sam

That's an awfully fuzzy definition of what's acceptable and what's not for something being dealt with at a political level. > while continuing to make that same content available through non-drm, inexpensive sources And who's going to force the rights-holders to do this? > that this incredible flow of high quality content we all enjoy will disappear, almost overnight Funny, art has survived quite a few shakeups in distribution and access throughout history and so far has kept getting better. Don't get me wrong, this is a huge problem right now. Artists deserve to, and society needs them to, get paid. But people will share bits with each other in ways that are indistinguishable from free speech. Going after the worst offenders works now, but those offenders are getting smaller and more distributed all the time. Even if they never go away, that group will soon be the biggest offenders. Trackerless torrents and distributed torrent search is here, and gaining in popularity. A lot of people in the HN community are working on new, easier ways to share bits with friends right now. Can you define a middle ground that can identify and stop (or at least slow) the p2p distribution of copyrighted material that does not involve monitoring that p2p traffic to scan it for infringing content? That seems like a paradox.