This is a very good idea that needs some work. Speeding is responsible for thousands of deaths every year, and current enforcement mechanisms are ineffective, expensive, and often unfair. Issues of "individual choice" and "invasiveness" are not relevant, because the decision to speed directly endangers the lives of other people.
Physically limiting speed, however, seems ill-advised. As other comments have pointed out, it is sometimes necessary to speed away from a dangerous situation. Another problem is that people with strong feet (pronounced "adolescent males") will be able to speed more than people without--the pedal does not become impossible to depress beyond the legal limit, just harder.
Warning lights or noises are far more advisable. These could be combined with systems that record speed limit violations, and report them to authorities if they exceed a certain frequency or severity.
These issues will be ironed out with experience. For now, I wish the Canadian regulators good luck.
No word on whether it can be user-disabled..
Just add all 70 different compounds. Then a reader machine would see either all 1's or all 0's, making the tag impossible to identify meaningfully.
The idea of compulsory licensing seems at first glance like the perfect marriage of government and the marketplace: artists are amply rewarded, demand dictates how much musicians get paid, and anyone, regardless of wealth, has equal access to information.
But there are serious problems that will prevent this from happening, however wonderful it might seem:
1) Different people listen to different quantities of music. Someone who downloads 500 songs per year will therefore make the government pay 500 times as much money to the artists than the guy who only downloads one song. If I were that guy downloading one song, I'd not be too pleased about paying for some guy I don't know to listen to some artist I might not even like.
2) If there is no cost incurred to the user for downloading a song, many people will download huge numbers of songs, many of which will simply get thrown away. A song with an attractive name might get many downloads, even if no onne likes it. A corollary problem is that of bots being used to increase an artist's download quantity, and therefore unfairly make him money. There is, of course, no 100% reliable way to distinguish between a bot and a human.
3) There would be no way to track exchange of songs. If the songs have no DRM-like restrictions, than I can give a copy to my friend, an no one will no about it, so the ratings won't increase correspondingly. Even with the most advanced statistical methods, it is not possible to know just how many copies of a song have been made unless one actually does a study for each song (different songs that appeal to different demographic sectors will be copied more or less, etc). The only solution to this would be to somehow institute a mandatory reporting system, by which the federal government would know each time a song changes hands... but I'm sure such a system would not appeal to all you anti-DRM folks, as it could concentrate a frightening amount of personal information in the hands of the government.
4) What about international downloads? Would this just be the US government funding this with US taxpayer dollars? Or a consortium of countries? But what if one country downloads more music than another, and how do we farily assess which countries download what? Frankly, it'd be hard enough to get the US government to implement such a scheme without making it suck incorrigibly; I certainly can't imagine UNESCO, the WTO, or another international body doing it.
5) Even though distribution costs are small on the internet someone still needs to supply the servers from which songs are downloaded before they are shared. As it would be impossible to do this profitably when one could just get the songs from a P2P service, this too would have to be run with taxpayer dollars.
6) Most people of the free world--especially Americans--are mistrustful of the government interfering in markets, especially when it come to effectively monopolizing information markets as public goods. This belief is certainly not just superstitious, and it prevails regardless of how noble the intent of such schemes. Therefore, it would be damn hard to drum up popular support for such an initiative.
Conclusion:
The arguments above are just one example of how totally free exchange of intellectual property simply can not provide the producer with fair compensation. The idea is almost a contradiction itself. In economists' language, the Internet provides us with the power to treat what is still a scarce economic good as if it were a free good--ie, common property. Yet the Tragedy of the Commons remains painfully relevant: in the end, someone has to pay.
The main reason no office suite has seriouly challenged MS Office is that none can truly run on both macs and PCs. Sure, AbiWord and OpenOffice can run on mac under X11, but only the geekiest would ever use an X11 app on a mac to write a business letter or term paper.
Many companies, universities, and government agencies use both macs and PCs. It would be unwise for such organizations to consider using an office suite that does not run well on all their computers.
Also, in order for an office suite to catch on, it needs to work both in the home and at the office. I will personally never use anything but MS Office as long as it does not suit *all* of my Officeish needs, at work and at home. Apart from the hapless AppleWorks, I have seen no would-be Office substitutes that have really marketed toward home users.
What needs to be done:
1) {Open/Star}Office, AbiWord, and I guess Ability need to have fully functional, aesthetically pleasing MacOS ports, not just hacked up porting jobs.
2) Someone needs to package these products with Macs and PCs intended for the home market.
Until both of these happen, no one will seriously challenge office.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a very good idea that needs some work. Speeding is responsible for thousands of deaths every year, and current enforcement mechanisms are ineffective, expensive, and often unfair. Issues of "individual choice" and "invasiveness" are not relevant, because the decision to speed directly endangers the lives of other people. Physically limiting speed, however, seems ill-advised. As other comments have pointed out, it is sometimes necessary to speed away from a dangerous situation. Another problem is that people with strong feet (pronounced "adolescent males") will be able to speed more than people without--the pedal does not become impossible to depress beyond the legal limit, just harder. Warning lights or noises are far more advisable. These could be combined with systems that record speed limit violations, and report them to authorities if they exceed a certain frequency or severity. These issues will be ironed out with experience. For now, I wish the Canadian regulators good luck.
No word on whether it can be user-disabled.. Just add all 70 different compounds. Then a reader machine would see either all 1's or all 0's, making the tag impossible to identify meaningfully.
But there are serious problems that will prevent this from happening, however wonderful it might seem:
1) Different people listen to different quantities of music. Someone who downloads 500 songs per year will therefore make the government pay 500 times as much money to the artists than the guy who only downloads one song. If I were that guy downloading one song, I'd not be too pleased about paying for some guy I don't know to listen to some artist I might not even like.
2) If there is no cost incurred to the user for downloading a song, many people will download huge numbers of songs, many of which will simply get thrown away. A song with an attractive name might get many downloads, even if no onne likes it. A corollary problem is that of bots being used to increase an artist's download quantity, and therefore unfairly make him money. There is, of course, no 100% reliable way to distinguish between a bot and a human.
3) There would be no way to track exchange of songs. If the songs have no DRM-like restrictions, than I can give a copy to my friend, an no one will no about it, so the ratings won't increase correspondingly. Even with the most advanced statistical methods, it is not possible to know just how many copies of a song have been made unless one actually does a study for each song (different songs that appeal to different demographic sectors will be copied more or less, etc). The only solution to this would be to somehow institute a mandatory reporting system, by which the federal government would know each time a song changes hands... but I'm sure such a system would not appeal to all you anti-DRM folks, as it could concentrate a frightening amount of personal information in the hands of the government.
4) What about international downloads? Would this just be the US government funding this with US taxpayer dollars? Or a consortium of countries? But what if one country downloads more music than another, and how do we farily assess which countries download what? Frankly, it'd be hard enough to get the US government to implement such a scheme without making it suck incorrigibly; I certainly can't imagine UNESCO, the WTO, or another international body doing it.
5) Even though distribution costs are small on the internet someone still needs to supply the servers from which songs are downloaded before they are shared. As it would be impossible to do this profitably when one could just get the songs from a P2P service, this too would have to be run with taxpayer dollars.
6) Most people of the free world--especially Americans--are mistrustful of the government interfering in markets, especially when it come to effectively monopolizing information markets as public goods. This belief is certainly not just superstitious, and it prevails regardless of how noble the intent of such schemes. Therefore, it would be damn hard to drum up popular support for such an initiative.
Conclusion:
The arguments above are just one example of how totally free exchange of intellectual property simply can not provide the producer with fair compensation. The idea is almost a contradiction itself. In economists' language, the Internet provides us with the power to treat what is still a scarce economic good as if it were a free good--ie, common property. Yet the Tragedy of the Commons remains painfully relevant: in the end, someone has to pay.
--AC
The main reason no office suite has seriouly challenged MS Office is that none can truly run on both macs and PCs. Sure, AbiWord and OpenOffice can run on mac under X11, but only the geekiest would ever use an X11 app on a mac to write a business letter or term paper. Many companies, universities, and government agencies use both macs and PCs. It would be unwise for such organizations to consider using an office suite that does not run well on all their computers. Also, in order for an office suite to catch on, it needs to work both in the home and at the office. I will personally never use anything but MS Office as long as it does not suit *all* of my Officeish needs, at work and at home. Apart from the hapless AppleWorks, I have seen no would-be Office substitutes that have really marketed toward home users. What needs to be done: 1) {Open/Star}Office, AbiWord, and I guess Ability need to have fully functional, aesthetically pleasing MacOS ports, not just hacked up porting jobs. 2) Someone needs to package these products with Macs and PCs intended for the home market. Until both of these happen, no one will seriously challenge office.