These are very good arguments ...
I was more or less in favor of HADOPI (not the police side of it but the fact that it was a way to punish minor offences without going the full trial / fine even prison stuff). Now I must agree more or less with the parent post.
By rejecting HADOPI, this means that copying digital music, pictures and text is legal as long as it is released to the public.
- One alternative business model proposed was the global licence.
- are they others?
You have to be aware of the very deep consequences of permitting free copy of existing work as long as it can be digitalize. What limit should we put to this new freedom?
If we do not put any limit:
1- for artist, they will be bound to make live performances to earn some money which is a good thing. However to be able to live, a large chunk of them will "sell" their services to advertisment copanies or marketing companies. Music will become either a free art or a marketing addons.
1a - iTune music store may lower the price but not disapear as it provides a distribution service but a Deezer and other free alternative will become dominant.
2- Classical music hum ... fewer symphonic orchestra
3- what about painting and photograhies? This mean that digital copies of pictures.
4- How will be movies financed if they can be legally leaked to the Web? Is a global licence enough to cover this? Does it mean that the movie producers will be directly paid by the government?
5- Software will be able to be duplicated for free. No Microsoft anymore. Great for Linux fans but what about the general public? Software product will disapear. SaaS and Open Source + paid service will become the dominant model as this will the only source of revenue.
6 - newspaper will dies more quickly. Is it a problem?
I still beleive that there must be some limit to this copy freedom. But which one?