Excuse me but I think you are seriously overreacting here.

First of all, the study reviewed in the Le Monde article is the academic study that claimed (my choice of words) to show correlation between increased music sales and implementation of Hadopi, not the actual IFPI/Nielsen study of the decrease in file-sharing after Hadopi implementation.

Secondly, we all know how easy it is to discredit these kinds of academic economic studies. All this Le Monde article says is: “Faut-il pour autant nier un ‘impact pédagogique’ lié à la mise en place de la Hadopi? L’effet existe indéniablement, mais il est en revanche extrêmement difficile de le quantifier.” Or if you will permit me a most likely poor translation: “Should the ‘educational impact’ of Hadopi implementation be denied? The effect undeniably exists, but however it is extremely difficult to quantify.” I agree with this; even more difficult to quantify any correlation between reduced infringement and increased sales, however much an organization like IFPI would like to.

Before I wrote this article, I searched the “usual suspects” to see if anyone had debunked the central statistic here, which is the 26% reduction in file-sharing. No one would touch it; the closest I found was a piece of under-researched snark in The Register (UK) that simply raised the point that “the pirates will just go elsewhere.” In fact, the 26% was so under-reported among the techblogorati that I concluded it is probably a solid fact.

Measuring P2P file-sharing traffic is actually straightforward and fact-based; it is a far cry from the bogus “studies” that we get from trade associations on both sides of this issue about effects on the GDP and so on; moreover, Nielsen measures this kind of thing routinely. I think that IFPI deserves credit for trying to measure what’s measurable and reporting the facts.

http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/01/24/hadopi-source-de-la-croissance-d-itunes_1633919_651865.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

How much more time will this industry fight the un-fightable (digital evolution) and finally embrace it as a true opportunity, making the users part of the solution rather than the problem ?

At the end of the day, the only down to earth, reasonable conclusion one might draw is : given the right business model (i.e., availability of legal, hassle free, enjoyable, affordable alternatives), revenues go up. And that’s about it !

Sorry for not understanding but I don’t understand. There are no “technical” means of enforcement in copyright. There are laws and if you infringe there are lawsuits with courts that impose remedies. The remedies have max/min levels. Injunctive relief is a statutory remedy existing outside of the Copyright Act. I repeat that the CC license is a waiver. There is no enforcement mechanism for a waiver as it is a defense raised in an infringement action.

If what you mean is that there is no one out there policing whether the CC license is being properly complied with, then no – but then this would be the case if a more “formal” license were used. And, the concept of waiver is completely at odds with the shotgun approach taken by Hollywood. They would never have a waiver concept and would require everyone to license material for each occasion – an extremely inefficient model particularly when dealing with a content creator who wants to run along the lines of the CC license with the primary motivation of getting known.

I repeat my assertion that you don’t understand what I am arguing. The “system” I am talking about technical measures for enforcing rights, not legal ones.

- bill.

With all respect I think you are digging yourself a hole. You say: “I’m going to try to state this as simply as I can: it hardly matters what any of these licenses say; without tools other than the legal system to enforce them, they are effectively worthless anyway” but then you seem to compare CC licenses with some other form of “system” (whether other form of license agreement or whatever).

However, my point remains: The CC license system is nothing but a waiver of the rights otherwise provided for under the Copyright Act. Enforcement is not an issue as that is taken care of, to the extent not specified in the CC license, by the Copyright Act as to those areas of use not expressly waived.

I really don’t see the basis for the complaint here. the CC license is best seen as a waiver – not an affirmative license – and thus needs no enforcement mechanism.