[pp.int.general] cultural flatrate: PP position?
r.bakels at planet.nl
Mon Jun 8 14:48:34 CEST 2009
> Both GPL and CC are a "hack" for a failing system.
> Basically you now say: Let's dont fix the system, because i wish to keep
> the "hack"
> This does not sound like logic to me.
> Even if we win, and copyright for non commercial use becomes free there
> will still be term for commercial protection.
> Within this term, licenses such as GPL and CC can still exist.
> If you do not like change, why are you in politics ?
Right: that is a reason to reject flatrates.
Still there is a paradox. Both with GPL and most of the CC schemes, the
author imposes obligations on anyone using their works, and that is
certainly PP ought to synpathise with. One does not want Microsoft or
Philips to take open source code, say "thank you", and incorporate it in
closed source commercial code. If I create a MIDI file, I don't want
somneone to store it on his website and ask a fee for downloading my work
(which is actually what is happening: I uploaded several MIDI files before I
knew about CC licencing). You don't want Benneton to user your creative
commons paintings for a commercial without paying you a penny. You don't
want someone to "improve" your writings in a way you disagree with.
So the creators have legitimate interests that deserve legal support. Should
perhapos a distinction be made between the *actual* author and the "legal
author" (righhts owner)? This distinction exists today for personality
rights (as opposed to exploitation rights): one can not waive or assign
(transfer) personality rights (for whatever amout of money!)
So personality rights need to be extended and exploiattion rights need to be
Did I forget anything?
More information about the pp.international.general