Do you REALLY think that shop lady and the customers singing a rolling stones song inside the shop should pay the rolling stones (cartel association they belong to) a "performance" fee? This isn't changing the subject, it is THE subject at hand in the article. I need no more than a yes or no. This is as short and on topic as I can make it then. It has nothing to do with your code or my landscaping arrangements, nor anything else, today, an exact happening, in the article, the shop lady/shop/customers singing a song inside the shop, and some fee that they allegedly owe because they violated some law and the law allegedly says they owe it. So, yes, or no?
I would rather see people educated instead of regulated.
Right. That's what this is. The changes are requiring the ads to *educate* the consumers regarding the strings attached to "endorsements". It's a really good thing, that will make it a little bit harder to lie or mislead people. Seriously, nobody is trying to take away your free speech or say that you can't endorse things all that you want. This is just about increasing the amount of truth in advertising.
This is of course, only possible if the writers of P2P software actually give two hoots about the bill.....
As we all know, the authors of P2P software are generally very conscientious about following the law. Not to mention the fact that they all fall under US jurisdiction.