[pp.int.general] direction for copyright?

[Reinier Bakels]

> Reinier Bakels wrote:
> Currently I am at a conference in the US, organised by the "Trans Atlantic 
> Consumer Dialog". Yesterday there was a panel on copyright. It seems that 
> leading scholars converge to the idea that the interests of copyright 
> owners are best met by collective agreements e.g. between ISPs and 
> collective rights organisations.
>
> While this avoids problems like massive monitoring
> Disagree on that: think about Choruss, and its self-declared purpose to 
> extend its surveillance manners from the Colleges to the ISPs.

Sorry, the purpose of a "blanket licence" is to allow "everything".
>
> deterrent criminal sanctions
> It's not clear, you can check some pages that, as PIRATA, has many doubts 
> concerning that issue.
Same.Then there is no infringement anymore whatever  they do.
>
> levies
> Disagree: again, Choruss aims for a yearly fee. You may say it's not a 
> levy ... however, it works the same as media & devices levies: it's 
> collected no matter whether you use your internet connection for 
> filesharing protected works or not.
What is really a levy? It is a kind of tax on a product. If you buy a blank 
CD, there may be a levy for copyright reasons (incidentally, I heard that 
sometimes the levy on blank DVDs is lower, so that no more blank CDs are 
sold!) Lump sum agreements (such as in this case) arer not tied to the sales 
of a product - so imgo they are no levies, by definition. I both cases, the 
tariff base is questionable, and I wonder which is more (dis)honest.

> Agree.
> Agree.
> One of many levies & RMOs' contradictions, of course.
Eventually we agree on some issues!
reinier