a Creative Commons license that permits redistribution but reserves commercial use rights, you can go to jail for redistributing it. I mean, really, what more can be said about such an overbroad bill? We need to have a "true names" bill for politicians. By all rights, State Sen. Kevin Murray should start calling himself State Sen. Hollywood Sycophant. Now, I'm not a big fan of micropayments, but I think there might well be a market for certain Big Media Objects (BMOs) if the payment isn't too small. For example, the author imagines films being made available through this method for $2-3. I could certainly see this sort of payment making sense for a series, such as the awesome Red vs. Blue , where you buy an entire season for, say, $5-20. Of course, a subscription model for all-you-can eat content *cough*music*cough* might be a very good model as well. The best part of the piece though is the analysis of the ethos of BitTorrent and payments: Does this mean that there is a common ground between independents and the BitTorrent community that allows for the introduction of transactions into the equation? There very might well be, and there seems to be little technical barrier in experimenting and seeing firsthand. It might even be a common ground that traditional media companies and the artists they distribute don't/can't/won't share, making this an emerging system ripe for independent adoption over corporate adoption. There are also tantalizing questions I still have about how this