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

[Reinier Bakels]

> The zero marginal cost argument does not help you. The marginal cost of 
> copyrighted works always was relatively low (or zero) - but that was 
> actually the reason to
> *introduce* copyright.


>> I think one of the initial intentions of copyright was forcing publishers 
>> to give some of the profits they earned when they published authors' 
>> creations. Because it might >> cost about zero to print a book, but book 
>> publishers are going to make a profit.

>> My opinion is that, in a business, you have to sell something that people 
>> will pay for. And if people don't buy it the problem is not on the people 
>> that get a copy for free, >> it is in your product. I love AC/DC, I got 
>> all of their albums, but I didn't pay for them, I downloaded them for 
>> free. But Last Friday I went to their concert and paid 70€ >> for that. I 
>> didn't like the product "CD album", but I liked the product "concert 
>> tickets", and had I not downloaded their whole discography for free I 
>> wouldn't have
>> bought the concert tickets nor a sole CD album.

sorry 4 the confusion. i completely agree with you that there are 
alternative business models - and they must be preferred over the 
traditional model.

the only thing i intended to say is that the "zero marginal cost" argument 
does not fly. perhaps it may impress fellow pirates, but as a lawyer i 
learned to look for defendable arguments.

traditional compyright depends on the linkage between the work and a "token" 
that is hard to reproduce in good quality. due to the progress of 
technology, this is simply no longer true: this inherent technological 
"protection" does not work any longer, and, additionally, the intuitive 
credibility is zero nowadays.
consequently, if the same outdated legal system is maintained, a major 
enforcement effort is needed, uncluding "deterrence" acts that amount to 
state terrorism.

from an economic perspective, market failure can be remedied if 
externalities can be internalised, but this approach no longer works if the 
cost of internalisation exceeds the yield. the only remedu: let someone else 
pay for the enforcement. that is why record companies favour criminal 
enforcement (and because it is a public relations nightmare if they enforce 
themselves - artists eventually depend on popularity!) So the business case 
is: let the taxpayer pay 100 million enforcement cost so that the record 
companies can collect 10 million. This is still profitable business for 
record companies!

Flatrate systems reduce the enforcement cost only yo a limited extent. There 
are many escape routes, as some of my fellow pirates explained earlier 
today.

reinier