[Giggleton]

I agree with most of what Stallman has to say, but I do not think we should reject ebooks. We should obtain our ebooks through indirect methods until the direct methods provide a more just method for supporting authors.

I do like this aspect of his internet sharing license,

"The most obvious method is to compute each artist's share in direct proportion to her work's popularity. (Popularity can be measured by inviting 100,000 randomly chosen people to provide the lists of the works they have played.) That's what "compensate the rights holders" proposals typically do. But that method of distribution is not very effective for promoting the arts, because a large fraction of the funds would go to the few superstars, who are already rich or at least comfortable, leaving little money to support all the artists who really need it."

I've advocated for randomized lists of content users to gauge what should be promoted on a content distribution system, it feels like it could work. He's talking about music here, and it seems that levy's could probably be more easily computed directly in the user's music player. Although the potential for abuse is still there as always(music player bots playing songs over and over) For that we would need an end to anonymity(one player per person), which goes against Stallman's first point I suppose. If everyone knows what everyone else is doing, I think we would be allright.

But for books it is a bit different. Sometimes we read a book and say that book was not good... Should the author still be compensated for such a book?