[pp.int.general] An answer to RMS' critique of the PP.SEpolitical programme

[Reinier Bakels]

> While the points raised by RMS may be interesting enough, I don't really 
> think his concerns are as pressing as they are made out to be. His post 
> seems to assume the immediate application of PP's proposals to todays 
> systems and business models, while the way works are sold/distributed 
> remains at a status quo.
<snip>
I do think that there is some kind of a paradox. I don't claim to have a 
full solution, but perhaps part of it is to concentrate on the *contents* of 
copyright rather than the *term*. Remember that copyright (at least in a 
European perception) consists of an *exploitation* right and *moral* rights. 
"Copyleft" arrangements (like used for Open Source) rely on the fundamental 
right of authors to decide what happens to the works they produce. The 
change should be on the level of the exploitation rights. A Dutch PhD thesis 
of a gentleman now professor proposed "copyright on access": pay once, and 
then it is over. The rediculous "multiplication" rights stems from the times 
that copying still required costly equipment.

An additional benefit of this type of approach is that it is much more 
feasible than a drastic term reduction - because the term is cast in 
concrete in various international treaties. The "rights contents" part is 
moving. A Dutch collection society announced some months ago to ask an 
(outrageous) fee for websites imbedding fragements of copyrighted works. 
They said only to apply the law. But then, after strong protests, they 
backed out (without saying "we no longer apply the law", of course!) There 
is room for interpretation on this level. And for change. Allegedly we even 
pay the cable networks for the "republication" of commercials!

For me the long time perspective is that authors who can't survive without 
copyright are subsidised with the money that is currently used for public 
broadcasting. Unlike the US, in European countries that are still major 
broadcasting channels funded by taxpayer money - who compete with commercial 
channels in an unexplicable way. It is a leftover from the times that TV was 
a "natural monopoly" because of the scarcity of bandwith (with the 
technology of the time). Economist told me that most authors can survive by 
adapting their business models. Yes, publishers will have a hard time. But 
we no longer need them.

reinier