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

[Boris Turovskiy]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> The problem as expressed in the subject line includes a different one: 
> what is a "functional work"? 
I rather agree with the point that this question is much more 
interesting and ambiguous than the definition of "commercial".
IMO this distinction is quite overrated. A software is "used" for 
"practical purposes", but likewise a picture used for illustrating an 
article or a song used partially for making a soundtrack can be said to 
be "used" for "practical purposes" rather than "distributed". In that 
sense I oppose the division into "functional works" and "non-functional 
works", but consider author's rights protections for use in commercial 
activity to apply to both "use" and "distribution" (like many software 
licenses "for personal use only" do).
> This notion does not really belong in the (traditional) copyright 
> system: it is a "Fremdkörper", a clear case of "scope creep" where PPI 
> should definitely oppose against. Copyright is about *publication* and 
> *multiplication*, not about *use* (function). 
That's why I prefer talking about the more general European notion of 
"author's rights" rather than about copyright:)

Best regards,
Boris