[pp.int.general] copyright vs. "droit d'auteur"

[Reinier Bakels]

> Reinier Bakels wrote:
>> My experience is different. (No, not just of my own messages!) One is 
>> only "convincing" if both the argument is OK *and* the receiver of the 
>> message is prepared to accept it.
> From my experience, many SMEs -SMEs are one of most suffering victims of 
> levies; ask APEMIT, VACHE, hairdressers, etc, to name a few examples- are 
> prepared to accept it; from my experience, many non-SGAE authors are 
> prepared to accept it; from my experience, many Internet intensive (i.e., 
> reading slashdot, digg, etc) are prepared to accept it; who is not? Let's 
> gonna work on informing those who are not.
The issue was whether the human rights argument works. Of course, the 
*victims* you quote are all happy with any argument supporting their cause. 
But in my opinion legislators are not easily convinced by the human rights 
argument to reduce copyright - as said, there are even "human rights" 
argument to increase copyright and copyright enforcement.

>> And the propaganda of the IFPI and its allies is strong. But the 
>> counter-argument is easy. No outsider ever believes that one should pay 
>> also for copying his OWN (legally obtained) CDs onto a MP3 player or PC 
>> disk.
> Mmm ... that's not private copying, at least in Spain; that's not the only 
> private copying scenario. e.g., *if Cuatro channel broadcasts */*House*/*, 
> and I save the episode* in a tape/CD/DVD, the episode has been legally 
> *accessed* -there is no need for me to purchase and/or own
Yes, it is a private copy, and levies are designed to compensate the author. 
You proved my point: it is entirely counter-intuitive. Are you familiar with 
the SONY-Betamax case? (http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/) At some 
point in time, mere "time shift" (recording a TV programme in order to view 
it later) was said to be a copyrighted act (but eventually it was not).
>
> What applies to some countries doesn't apply to others; Directive 
> 2001/29/CE gives countries certain margin to create cases where 
> authorization of authors is not required, and private copying in Spain is 
> one of them.
In NL private copying is allowed, but is not exempted from copyright: the 
levies serve tje purpose to compensate the author.
>> Still it is considered a copyright-protected "multiplication" act.
> Remember: no /c word/ in Spanish legal framework.
Don't try to start another flame war. Some translations got general 
acceptance even if they are not enirely correct. Perhaps I should refer to 
"derecho de autor" if I talk to you?
>> No human rights are needed to explain this!
> Except PROMUSICAE pushes Telefonica SAU and brings the case to ECJ; and
I admit: privacy is basically a human right of its own kind, and here human 
rights relevant. Still, the argument is easily reversed: "we shouldn't be 
overly concerned with privacy and risk the lives of people due to terrorist 
attacks". Or, like Angela Merkel once said: we should not refrain from using 
all available technology to protect our citizen ... And, again, in copyright 
the argumentis even more easily reversed: infringement is stealing and it is 
a human right of the author to be protected against theft.

> http://int.piratenpartei.de/Levies_Questionnaire#An_basic_question_about_levies
> http://int.piratenpartei.de/Levies_Questionnaire#How_should_the_compensation_work.3F

The basis of this article is wrong. It says that levies serve the purpose to 
compensate the author for economic loss. But in the "droit d'auteur" 
perception the author is simply entitled to the money *because he is the 
author* (and nothing else). Likewise, infringement does not require a 
monetary damage to be illegal, unless a plain tort.

> We are going to use -we are actually using- human rights as part of our 
> arguments. It is necessary for us.
Sorry you are not open to my advice. I wonder why this"we" should actually 
be replaced by "I" (+ Carlos). Using the wrong argument can actually be very 
detrimental, for the reasons I tried to explain above.