[pp.int.general] 3-step usage rights / forced licensing model
scoffer at kofeiini.riippuvuus.net
Tue Nov 3 12:53:55 CET 2009
> i like the idea very much. But i think, the last step sould last for the
> whole lifetime of the author (plus some years after releasing).
> The reason for my opinion is: Especially when we are talking about
> music, there are some steps of creating and releasing. When you compose
> a song and write a text then you do it usually at home with the piano or
> a guitar. When you did this the song in the main is finished. But there
> are different possibilitys to interpret the song. You can do it just
> with the acoustic guitar, you can have a small band, you can have a big
> band, you can have a classical orchestra, you can use the computer to
> simulate "classic" instruments or to do it in a "techno"-way. To get the
> most out of the song it's advantageous to have money and to pay good
> musicians and a good studio, even if it became cheaper and easier
> nowadays or if you are pretty good on your acoustic guitar.
> So it may be that you record the song and even if it's really good you
> don't have success because it's recorded too "cheap". Not to speak of
> the difficulties to make it known through the channels of distribution
> which are ruled by the media industry. Or the audience, who prefers to
> listen to songs by persons who already are famous. Even today
> permanently there are songs from the 60s dug by producers, which were
> not very famous at their time but now are pimped up and are pretty
> successful. I think, that disproves the argument "[within 20 years]
> making some profit for the creator, or if it hasn't...it probably never
> Bernhard Schillo
There has been others too who think second step is already so free, they
could accept it for a lifetime. For now, I stand for 20 years since I
have talked a lot with professional music creators (living from their
work on music), read studies of needed protection time etc...
Some music creators told most of their income today, comes from 15 year
old music which now makes possible to create more music even newest
productions wouldn't sell so good. Is this good or bad, I don't start to
compare now. But everything seems to say 15 years is needed, so I added
so called backup 5 years for it and came up with 20 years of protection.
I think the conversation should not be on what time feels good, but with
this kind of pretty free system, is there need for more or less
protection time. I think there should not at least be need for less -
you can already use the work of another person. Fee shouldn't be a huge
problem on commercial use. Is there need for more protection time? I
think it is so rare for a work to bring income after tens of years that
such rare exceptions shouldn't be the ones law is written for. Thou I
don't know yet is there significant reason to object longer time.
One fact still is, no-one creates culture to get money after tens of
years. They try to get income instantly if they try at all.
Pasi "Scoffa" Palmulehto
Leader of Finnish Pirate Party
More information about the pp.international.general