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

[Reinier Bakels]

Christian, thx 4 all your comments. Basically my concern with flatrates is 
that creative reformers like yourselves and Volker Grassmuck may get 
trappped into a dreadful commercial trick of record companies. Like all 
commercial firms, they want more money, but tthey don't do that by providing 
value to customers, but by devising stories that explain that it is 
"logical" to give them money, and that it is "logical" to invoke the 
criminal system for enforcement (it is free! unlike civil enforcement). And 
I bet that most of the money goes to record companies, not to "poor" artists 
(because in most countries, authors contract law is poorly developed, see 
the Max Planck position report on 50->95 year neighbouring rights extentsion 
issue).

If you are elected next week in the EP, are you aiming for a "reasonable", 
gradual approach? I thought that PP questions basic copyright law premises. 
And that may be a good starting point to enter negotiations. The only 
response to various legalistc objections against radical reforms (like 
TRIPS!) are imho observations from *reality* that really impress people: 1) 
copyright enforcement requres a police state, and suffers from severe 
credibility problems 2) flat fee and levy proposals usually stem from 
outright "rent seeking" campaigns by disrtributors such as record companies 
(and publishers). In a paper about levies, I read that record comopanies 
made the observation that the get ever less money, while the electronics 
industry is flourishing. So the devise tricks to revert part of the money 
into their pocktes. It is a dreadful business. I am poor and you are rich, 
so I devise a trick to let some money flow from you to me. because that 
makes me less poor.

It is like the bankrobber who was asked: "Why do you rob banks?" He 
answered: "Because that is where the money is!"

reinier