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

Tue Jun 2 12:28:00 CEST 2009

The idea of a tax for downloading has been discussed for years, it is
essentially a peace treaty suggestion that is inspired from the
cassette and CD/DVD tax fees, in Sweden it is 225% at the moment (they
increased it by 800% in 2003) why it is common to do private import
from Germany. The media industry (MPAA etc). have been pushing for a
similar tax on harddiscs and USB sticks etc:

http://www.danaquarium.com/article.php?story=2005071306065330
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/spain-set-to-impose-tax-on-ipod-iphone/
http://mashable.com/2008/03/14/preemptive-piracy-tax/

The really odd thing with all these taxes does not mean that you can
freely copy music CDs or DVDs - it’s still considered piracy why I do
not think the media industry will lay down their arms just because
this tax would be imposed and I question EFF's argument about the
anonymous in this monitoring:

"Figuring out what is popular can be accomplished through a mix of
anonymously monitoring what people are sharing (something companies
like Big Champagne and BayTSP are already doing) and recruiting
volunteers to serve as the digital music equivalent of Nielsen
families (something that Last.fm subscribers are already doing).
Billions in television advertising dollars are divided up today using
systems like this. In a digital environment, a mix of these approaches
should strike the right balance between preserving privacy and
accurately estimating popularity."

A quick visit at BayTSP's page shows that these "anonymous" monitoring
is in no way anonymous, to quote there Services:

"Monitor for your content online and, when necessary, take action to
have it removed. Use business intelligence to know where your content
is appearing on UGC sites, P2P networks and Cyberlockers. Learn where
your audiences congregate, track your content's "virality" and measure
the effectiveness of online campaigns."

Further arguments are easy to find:

http://lsolum.typepad.com/copyfutures/2004/09/the_problems_wi.html

I also agree with Rick that the traditional creator view is incorrect
since everybody is a creator today since creations are modified into
other creations every minute around the globe, a DJ is just a old
example of this. Newer approaches is how things are developed has been
described by a university teacher in a very nice way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU&feature=channel

The question is how we want to form the future, yes we are approaching
that position and I do not believe that the simple solution of just
exterminating the media distribution industry will be a solution. I
think we have to reshape it to respect all types of creators and
viewers without the expectation to always make a buck since that would
block the accelerating development that the world needs to survive in
it's current structure.

- Nicolas

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Erika Nilsson <narnigrin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Exactly; as Rick mentioned, there is no fool-proof way to fairly split the
> money, since we can't expect *any* governing body to have sufficient
> knowledge about *every* content creator who wants compensation (without
> watching over our every online move -- needless to say, nothing I'd expect
> anyone on this list to be in favour of). Besides, who will make up the group
> that decides where the money goes, and how can we guarantee that these
> people are unbiased?
>
> Basically, this sort of scheme is a nice idea, but it would never work in
> practice.
>
> Erika Nilsson
>
>
> 2009/6/2 Sina Amoor Pour <sina.amoorpour at gmail.com>
>>
>> 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.pirateweb.net
>>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>