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

[Christian]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> 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).

That's exactly the problem in germany. The GEMA has a pretty complex
key, how money is shared. E.g. an artist playing 10 show in the 10 GEMA
areas retrieves more money than an artist playing 10 show in a single
area - while the hosters of the shows pay the equal amount of money for
both...

A flatrate would be a compromise. Get the lawyers of the users necks.
Together with a transparent key how the money is shared, even artists
may profit from a flatrate. And basically we need artists to create art. :)


> 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. 

But we haven't found the best way - from my point of view. Without
copyright, you have no more GPL. No creative commons. And I like free
licences, since with them a creator can show, what he want's to allow to
do with product. A fair consumer would accept his wished. Think, this is
a question of respect. :)

> 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!"

Of course they want to make more money. That's capitalism. And it's our
job, to find a balance. :)

Christian