Doing my part.<p>This, IMHO, is a very reasonable and workable solution to infringement.<p>I very strongly dislike the implied "lost sale" as damages argument, largely because the money "implied" simply isn't there on the scale referenced by the major content producers and distributors.<p>People, by and large, have fixed entertainment dollars. And they spend them, and the forms of entertainment compete. If, suddenly, there were no infringement, people would max out those dollars, maybe adding a few here and there.. But the billions simply aren't there.<p>The product of that would be much higher competition for entertainment, people choosing to consume less entertainment, and or choosing to self-entertain with more basic, human means.<p>When the little guy wants to get known in that environment, what do you think is going to happen?<p>They will give it away to a hungry audience, that's what will happen.<p>And that too is a reason for my strong dislike for the high financial penalties. Infringement isn't theft. The rights owner still has everything, and loses nothing. In fact, they still have the opportunity, potentially improved by the infringing act, to sell to the infringer, right along with everyone else, and in particular, who that infringer may recommend to, or share about.<p>I'm not saying it's right. It's not. I am saying a much more rational and real conversation needs to happen about these things. The equation to theft is actually doing us a lot of harm, due to bad discussions lead to bad law, and bad law leads to a state where it's not respected, etc... and that is where we are today.<p>Law that doesn't take into account the realities and dynamics won't be effective. It almost never is. And that discord drives people to reject it and ignore it, circumvent it...<p>Anyway, this is good! What it does do is improve on norms, and as Lessig tells us, regulation happens via law, physics, norms, money or markets.<p>Requiring people to demonstrate or help to improve on social norms can do a lot of good here, and it's time and energy better spent, IMHO.<p>I see jimrandomh talking about forced speech. Well, this kind of thing does further the conversation, and we all know the source of the speech and why it's happening. There is no need to be dishonest about any of it, and where we aren't, the better dialogs can happen.<p>I prefer this to bankrupting people.