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

[John Nilsson]

What rights are supposed to be gained from the flatrate system?
Redistribution? Remixing?

BR,
John

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at planet.nl> 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
>
>