our interest to pay them if we want anything to listen to. On the other hand, the kids understand a central fact about digital media: listening to a song, even having MP3 files on their hard drives, doesn't leave any less of it for other people to enjoy. So, why only music? Why not all digital goods, such as film, video, and software? How come nobody talks about compulsory licenses for these other forms of media? If the important consideration is that they are non-rivalrous, why not? The argument then moves on to an analogy with government sponsored parks and museums: Turning to the arts, we find the British have recently reduced museum admission prices to zero. There's been no mass closing of museums, curators are not enslaved, the maintenance people still get paid for their work and paintings are bought from artists and collectors just as before, because the government pays everyone's "admission price." Interestingly, this potential problem in the design of such a system is never mentioned. Could it be that, like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, politics would never, ever be a consideration in how the money is doled out and we certainly wouldn't have to worry about some version of the FCC fining or somehow censoring offensive works, right? I wonder if the public hearings that seem to be proposed here would be at all politicized: What makes music tricky is knowing how much to pay for which song, but it's not impossible. After all, how