[pp.int.general] Commercial use of functional works

[Reinier Bakels]

> In my opinion (which the Pirate Party may not agree with), works of
> practical use, which include dictionaries as well as software, ought
> to be free.
Yes! This is a *very* important issue. What is a "functional work"? I was 
faced with a commercial database of legal articles and case law (I won't 
mention the name - just in case Big brother is watching me). The information 
in this database is valuable ("functional") for various groups: attorneys, 
policy makers, scholars. Attorneys use it to make money, perhaps a lot of 
money. University scholars usually are poor, and policy makers are somewhere 
in the middle.
A straightforward "textbook" economic exercise would apply "price 
differentiation", considering the different "elasticity" for various target 
audiences: the price leading to maximum income varies by audience (and it 
hardly depends on cost: marginal cost of information is zero, it is only the 
additional cost of the server processing requests). The net effect (for me) 
is that I only can consult some of these databases in a university library, 
and the I have to *prove* that I am not an attorney. The library would 
violate the licence contract with the database provider if it would allow 
attorneys to use the database for a "scholar" price.
So I have to *travel* (and produce CO2!) in order to access information, in 
the Internet era! Fortunately it is easy to prove that I am not an attorney 
because the Dutch society of attorneys maintains a public list of its 
members (http://www.alleadvocaten.nl). And fortunately, this country is 
small, and I live close to many libraries. But not everybody is in such a 
favourable position!

The more fundamental issue is that (old fashioned) copyright was a right for 
"publication" and "multiplication" (in the broadest sense of the words), but 
NOT a right to use. When software was brought in the realm of copyright in 
the 1980s - early 1990s, many scholars objected because software copyright 
violates the system of copyright in the sense that it (locally?) includes a 
"use" right. (Incidentally, that was an argument to prefer patents over 
copyright - but let us leave that aside!)

Now, in a covert manner, with a smart use of licences, the above 
differentiation schemes effectively introduce a *use* right for (regular) 
writings. This was not the intent of the legislator. It hinders the access 
to information. Which violates human rights. A true pirate issue!

reinier