Barenaked Ladies: If I had a compulsory blanket music license

An Ars Technica article by Nate Anderson talks about the most widely supported alternatives to lawsuits and DRM. Unlike lawsuits which just upsets the customer base (you can't sue someone into being your customer), and DRM which infringes the basic property rights of technology owners and breaks interoperability, compulsory licensing would vastly increase the revenues being returned to artists.

For my part I believe that this type of system should be extended to not only non-commercial distribution and "user generated" derivatives of music, but also of movies and television.

There will be bumps in the road towards this goal. While composers and performers should receive the bulk of the benefit of any collective licensing scheme, the legacy recording industry seems to have excessive political power at the moment. The future health of the music industry relies on somehow reducing/eradicating the influence of a part of the sector that is no longer relevant.

The article included quotes from record industry executives demonstrating they still don't have a clue how a DRM system works. It isn't possible to "work out all of its current interoperability problems" as they claimed, given one of the core components of any DRM system is to encode content such that it is only interoperable with specific devices (where those devices are locked down to circumvent the property rights of their owners). A fully open standard, even Open Source implemented DRM system (as proposed by Sun) can exist, but at that point the digital keys still block interoperability. Making DRM systems interoperable is like making water not wet -- impossible due to its nature.