Written by KickingRaven the 14 Aug 09 at 19:01.

If the attitude towards file sharing could be changed to a more positive one then there are monetization opportunities. As an example, if a person shares content with people and that results in a sale then the sharer would receive some form of compensation, say credits via a redeemable code that the purchaser enters. Change the perception of the activity and recognize the potential benefits the change can represent.

If the attitude towards file sharing could be changed to a more positive one then there are monetization opportunities. As an example, if a person shares content with people and that results in a sale then the sharer would receive some form of compensation, say credits via a redeemable code that the purchaser enters. Change the perception of the activity and recognize the potential benefits the change can represent.

Written by Tamir the 17 Aug 09 at 23:57.

Along with an attitude shift, maybe it would be useful to produce some form of legislative incentives in the coming copyright bill that would encourage content creators to develop monetization schemes?

Along with an attitude shift, maybe it would be useful to produce some form of legislative incentives in the coming copyright bill that would encourage content creators to develop monetization schemes?

Written by Brogar the 29 Jul 09 at 16:55.

Allowing the circumvention of digital locks in certain situations including research, education, and rightful ownership makes sense.

Allowing the circumvention of digital locks in certain situations including research, education, and rightful ownership makes sense.

Written by DFewer the 5 Aug 09 at 15:37.

Solution #1 is consistent with both C-60 and the DMCA approach. The problem with picking certain activities that are permitted to avoid a digital lock is that you replicate the work already done in the Copyright Act: we've already identified socially useful activities that do not infringe copyright. Why replicate that task in anti-circumvention?

This suggests that we adopt the C-60 approach - no liability for circumvention if done for a non-infringing purpose.

Solution #1 is consistent with both C-60 and the DMCA approach. The problem with picking certain activities that are permitted to avoid a digital lock is that you replicate the work already done in the Copyright Act: we've already identified socially useful activities that do not infringe copyright. Why replicate that task in anti-circumvention? This suggests that we adopt the C-60 approach - no liability for circumvention if done for a non-infringing purpose.

Written by Brogar the 27 Jul 09 at 16:18.

We could submit a simple policy paper outlining all of the topics they asked that we cover and the ideas and solutions that were proposed here.

We could submit a simple policy paper outlining all of the topics they asked that we cover and the ideas and solutions that were proposed here.

Written by Brogar the 27 Jul 09 at 16:58.

We might submit an actual act. This would be a significant amount of work and it much less accessible to non-law types.

We might submit an actual act. This would be a significant amount of work and it much less accessible to non-law types.

Written by kaplanmyrth the 14 Aug 09 at 16:17.

If this site gets a wide range of opinions that makes it hard to distill into a single policy vision, then it may still be useful to submit the results of this ideastorm as a report or even a dataset for further analysis.

If this site gets a wide range of opinions that makes it hard to distill into a single policy vision, then it may still be useful to submit the results of this ideastorm as a report or even a dataset for further analysis.