If Collective licensing is 'clearly the answer' then would not individual licenses that allow sharing be even better? Sharing is promoted as a social activity and 'true' sharing is just that. If one person puts some effort into or commits some resources towards providing another with something of value, the recipient can acknowledge this, and a true social exchange has taken place, a friendship strengthened. We are repeatedly told that the marginal cost of sending content across the Internet is practically zero therefore the social benefit of sharing stuff on P2P networks etc. is, in turn, quite small. It is the artist who put up the initial resources and they are not the ones sharing hence very little social benefit. Collective licenses, where legal sharers have to pay real money, could be a step in the right direction because they are committing resources to their social activity. It would be even better though if they bought sharing licenses from individual artists because that way the chain of social 'effort' is that much more closely related and stronger bonds can be formed - artist to fan to general user.