The carrot and the schtick?

Peer-to-peer-based file-sharing in Sweden: Clashing proposals from the interventionist state on what to do with a wildly file-sharing population. Pacify them with broadband-tax subsidised, “free” file-sharing or instil a general fear of uploading by penalising those who do?

In the current, once again harshening legal climate surrounding p2p-based file-sharing in Sweden, where the infamous EU-wide IPRED directive is now making inroads and might be implemented early next year (effectively granting powers to private bodies to monitor and police what they consider illegal copyright infringements), it is noteable that there are two strands of the debate which both assume state intervention, but in different ways. These two forms of intervention – in effect, corporatist solutions where existing industries are subsidised by the state – are, however, seemingly incompatible with one another!

Creative Commons consolidates old-school copyright? That argument is secondary

There is a type of criticism against Creative Commons which has grown quite prominent within the copyleft recently. The main tenet in this line of argumentation seems to be that Creative Commons through its reliance on the existing copyright regime actually reinforces copyright.
For example, Crosbie Fitch recently argued for this stance on the fc-uk-discuss mailing list. He described Creative Commons (CC) as flawed, because it helps consolidating old-school copyright:

CC is flawed in that it consolidates the perception that the artist should be able to control the use of their art.
[...]
CC consolidates copyright.
It is as if the IP maximalists said to a great lawyer “How can we get the masses to respect our copyrights?”, and he replied “Simple: encourage the masses to embrace copyright themselves, in everything they do. If everyone believes in it, it becomes more powerful. They will then perceive their use of manacles upon their culture as enfranchising, as their own emancipation.”