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

[Félix Robles]

>
> 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.


I don't have much time to extend my opinion right now (because I'm headed to
an exam), but what I meant is that the"zero marginal cost" of a copy is not
an argument, it's simply a technological fact to take into account.

You can try to chase "pirates" and you can try to make it more difficult to
get free copies of copyrighted material, but there always will be people
with the technological knowledge to share those copies for free.

And I'll always be one of those.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at planet.nl> wrote:

> 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
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20090609/01682afe/attachment.htm>