[pp.int.general] cultural flatrate: PP position?

[Sina Amoor Pour]

Imho, the feeling of guilt should not be a reason for implementing any laws
or systems. Also this feeling (that I believe less people are feeling) is
really not an issue that needs remedy. I also believe that there is no need
to feeling guilty for using new techonolgy that only hurts those who fight
it.

"These rightsholders (producers and artists alike) should obviously be
compensated; my personal take on the schemes is that they benefit everyone."

I don't think its obvious. But still the question about whether to
compensate or not is still the easy one. The hard one is HOW this should be
done. There isn't any fair way of doing this. And I don't think that this
even is necessary for the reasons Rick mentioned.

//Sina, member of swedish pp


On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Glenn Kerbein <glenn.kerbein a pirate-party.us
> wrote:

>        I believe that the term you are referring to is a "blanket licensing
> scheme." Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>        Only two countries, I know for certain, have adopted such a license.
> I
> feel that these licenses are beneficial to both producers,
> rightsholders, and the netizenry at large. Any subscriber can download
> from wherever and whenever without feeling, at least subtley, guilty for
> defrauding them. These rightsholders (producers and artists alike)
> should obviously be compensated; my personal take on the schemes is that
> they benefit everyone. The Isle of Mann and Jersey have adopted such
> licenses for it's citizens to purchase; I find it somewhat ironic that a
> tax haven (IM) has been the first to go through with the idea.
>        The EFF's take on the matter:
>
> http://www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forward-voluntary-collective-licensing-music-file-sharing
>        IM adopts MidemNet voluntary licensing scheme:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/01/isle-of-man-gets-unlimited-music-downloads-with-blanket-fee.ars
>
> Reinier Bakels wrote:
> > Is there a Pirate Parties position on the concept of a "cultural
> > flatrate", as proposed (for instance?) by Volker Grassmuck? It is about
> > the idea that all internet users pay a fixed amount which is
> > subsequently divided among copyright owners (by collective rights
> > organisations).
> >
> > It may be a practical solution to resolve potentially escalating
> > conflicts and top prevent draconic measures such as the "three strikes"
> > approach, and imprisonments.
> > But still it seems some sort of capitulation to the record and film
> > industry. The underlying assumption is that copyright remains as it was
> > (during the last decades). I udnerstand why this proposal focusses on
> > music and films, yet I think it is only a very limited subset of all
> > material covered by copyright: HTML files are also copyright protected
> > by default. Which lead to the conclusion that this system will
> > specifically cater for one very specific category of works: the works of
> > producers who managed to make most noise in the political arena.
> >
> > Furthermore, some of the underlying assumptions seem wrong to me. Like
> > the assumption that (very) roughly anybody over time downloads the same
> > amount (expressed in euro's) per month. Some people may download MP3's
> > like hell, others only access freely available material and paid MP3
> > stores. and we must not forget that levies on blank carriers are
> > supposed to cover the "free" downloads as well.
> >
> > A more fundamental problem imho is the problem how to divide the
> > collected money. Volcker Grassmuck argues hat it is feasible to
> > implement a kind of accounting system that keeps track of the downloaded
> > amount of material from different sources, and he proposes to pay the
> > copyright owners pro rata. This assumes a strict econoomic rationale for
> > copyright, which differs from the idea that copyright primarily serves
> > the purposes of fostering cukltural diversty - and payments to authors
> > are just a means to this end. Actually even present law respects that
> > there are also cutural purposes, next to economic purposes, which is
> > e.g. expressed in (statutory) rules that require collecting societies to
> > spend a certain percentage to "cultural" purposes (DE:
> > Urheberrechtswahrnemungsgesetz).
> >
> > If cultural diversity really is the purpose, imho the above economic
> > model should be abandoned completely. Then the collected money should be
> > distributed solely based on cultural priorities. Not by the collecting
> > societies, because they work primarily for the mass entertainment
> > industry, and the y are hardly democratically controlled.
> >
> > Effectively, "cultural" (flat)rates are a kind of tax. Subject to the
> > (constitutional) rule: no taxation without representation. That may seem
> > unusual, but this type of scheme is already implemented for public
> > broadcasting: the "flat" rate (NL: in the general means, DE: GEZ) is not
> > distributed by accountants, but by broadcastng policy authorities.
> >
> > But perhaps such schemes are unattractive for the IFPI and the RIAA:
> > they simply apply age-old tricks of rent-seeking: making a business out
> > of a government loby wich leads to legislation that creates a money
> > stream to these organisations and their members.
> > reinier
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> > pp.international.general a lists.pirateweb.net
> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
> --
> Glenn "Channel6" Kerbein
> Pirate Party of the United States
> "Burn, Hollywood, Burn"
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general a lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
-------------- proxime parte --------------
Un attachamento in formato HTML esseva removite...
Adresse de Internet: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20090602/9ee4daef/attachment-0001.htm>