Shawn M of Microsoft posted an interesting account of a visit to campus by Dr. Weinberger. I don't know either person, but one of the concepts really struck me as a novel idea.

When it comes to creative works, we are not "consumers," and we are not users. Rather we appropriate creative works, that is, we make them our own. We apply them to our own context. We get them somewhat right or entirely wrong. They become part of us. That's how how we learn and how culture changes. But that means that creators should lose control of their works as quickly as possible. Obviously, creators need to be be paid for their work, but not for every bit of value they create: You shouldn't have to pay me if you re-read my book or lend it to a friend, even though you are getting more value from my book. Tough noogies on me. A pay-per-use system and allowing artists to control their works much past launching them into the world will kill culture. Further, since publishing creates the public [a point I'd made earlier], building an infrastructure designed to allow that type of control will damage the new public of the Web as well as cripple culture. It's a really really really bad idea, so don't do it.

As a creator of creative works (books), I have to understand both sides of the argument. But I would never want to see a pay per use system implemented for books, even though I am sure the technology exists to create such a system. I'm not sure if I totally agree with the point, but it's an interesting point.