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

[Reinier Bakels]

> The pirate party is a collection of individuals, so not all of us will 
> agree to any point of view on any issue. My view is that artistic and 
> functional works should be treated exactly the same; a short (5 or 10 
> year) copyright that applies only to 'distribution in exchange for money' 
> commercial publishing.

You miss the point. The issue is that traditionally in copyright (or "droit 
d'auteur"), *publication* and *multiplication* are reserved acts, but *use* 
is not. Software copyright in that respect is an exception: the copyright 
owner can restrict the use of software (for instance to one processor, or to 
a processor with a certain capacity, or to a standalone system only, not a 
server). In contrast, if you buy a book, you can read it as often as you 
want: the copyright owner can't say: enough is enough, if you start reading 
the book a fourth time, I want more money.

But - as I explained eralier - copyright owners are trying to implement some 
sort of "use" right also for other works than software, by contractual 
means. As I explained earlier, "price differentiation" depending on use is 
very attractive for profit maximisation purposes. While publishers in the 
past had a social rol to help spreading information, now their main activity 
is to onstruct the spreading of information in the interest of their 
shareholders (and health care in lesser developed countries, via the Bill & 
Melinda Gates foundation).

Everybody is entitled to have his own opinion, but I guess that every true 
pirate is opposed agains an *extenstion* of the *content* (not the term!) of 
copyright by a right that is non-existant today! (except for software).