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

[Reinier Bakels]

>> If an "internet tax" is created how is the money distributed? These lines 
>> I'm writing are copyrighted by me, so I guess I'd have the right to get 
>> some money, right?
>
> Die you register somewhere, that you wrote this lines? If not, you won't
> receive any money either. Also you posted them yourselves on a medium
> without any markage of the exact terms you wish, so they are suspected
> to be free. (And my respect for you prevents me from selling them or
> citing you without asking before)

1. It is an age-old principle of copyright that the right is created without 
any formalities. It is in the Berne Convention. Eventually, even that 
Americans accepted it, sonme twenty years ago, though it still has benefit 
to use the (c) (©) sign for procedural reasons.
2. The existence of a right is to be separated from the "logistics" of any 
rights management organisation.
3. A lot is written without thge intent to exercise the copyright (like this 
message). Flatrate systems assume that all authors want money for their 
work. Then it is just logical that people writing mailing list posts also 
want money for their writings. Flatrate systems make it easier to administer 
that! The general assumption is appropriate that all consumers produce a 
substantial amount of "user generated content" that is entitled copyright 
just as much copyright protection (and compensation!) as the artists 
producing "donwload music". So of the proposal is e.g. to have a 10 euro 
flatrate, I suggest to reduce it to 3 euro, assuming that the subscribers to 
an internet connection produce 7 euro of content themselves. Similarly, the 
owners of a camera (in a mobile telephone or otherwise) should not *pay* a 
levy but *receive* a subsidy for everything they upload to Youtube etc.
There is nothing in law saying that only commercially exploited content is 
entitled copyright. You don't want to discriminate, do you?

reinier