Bullshit. Copyright and patent achieves little other than limiting the benefits of our collective social activity to a wealthy few. If you are an artist, and can't work out how to monetise that, you are either a crap artist or a crap businessman.
Being able to connect the dots after the event is useful? How? If all you can do after the fact is work out what a terrorist did, then you have already failed. You have failed in the worst possible way. The attack succeeded. You can work out most of that after the event without all that data.
And as usual, the people hoovering up that fee will be adding nothing at all of value and will not be passing them on to those whom it (under extreme copyright interpretation) is supposed is entitled to it.
It' all adding to the crap the supposes everything must be "owned" by largecorp, and largecorp must be paid. For some reason. Any reason.
It is worth remembering that the same IFPI that is DMCA'ing DotCom's own work from his own service is also colluding with the PIPCU in the UK to come up with a secret list of "infringing" sites. Now why should we think that IFPI's efforts in determining that list are any more competent than their takedown processes? I can't think of any...
Come on, really. A server crashed that took out the mail only of those of interest? Really? Lois Lerner's e-mails have been lost as a matter of policy, not fact. If it ever becomes more useful to have those, they will magically be found never to have been lost at all.
Unlikely - as the recommendation states, a.) buyers already assume they can do this, and b.) sellers already know that is a cost of doing business (not a cost as it happens...). If they increase prices, sales will fall. If they decrease prices sales will increase - look at the amazon / hachette argument to see just how far the copyright cult will go to ignore simple economics.