I love this guy: 'Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when Canadians take so much without paying for it?'. I don't know Mr. Henderson, but Pandora is apparently willing to do so, so maybe you should ease off the royalties a bit and that way you will get some money for "your" music. Instead, without services like Pandora people have limited venues for listening to music and as you said they will just take the path of least resistance and get their music for free. Didn't you learn anything from the past decade's battle over digital music distribution.You aren't in a position to negotiate. People already have access to free music. The only thing you can do is provide them with a legal and more convenient alternative.
Please point me to one website that is "drop-dead gorgeous" and not full of superfluous animations that slow down my browser.
I disagree with your notion that people will want to pay for other peoples opinions. This may have once been the case, but now the internet is awash with blogs and such that are almost exclusively other people's opinions. The way I see it it will only become more and more difficult for the NYT or any one else to convince readers that their columnists are so much "better" than the average blogger. The strength of the newspapers is that they can publish research intensive articles because their reporters are dedicated to this sort of thing. These sort of articles are what I enjoy reading in a paper. Problem is I think it is hard to convince people to read this sort of article rather than simply reading the summary from news aggregate (unless the reader has a very deep rooted interest in the subject).
I have a sneaking suspicion that the mpaa or riaa are going to get an amendment into this bill that will "stop piracy". I mean, a bill that pertains to p2p and doesn't include such an amendment, what's the chances of that?