[pp.int.general] 3-step usage rights / forced licensing model

[Andrew Norton]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Nicolas Sahlqvist <nicco77 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I like the idea, but leaning on Rick's opinion about a 5 year copyright
> period in total:
> "The stance of the Pirate Party is that copyrights should last for 5-10
> years, and they only restrict what you can buy and sell."
> http://www.atomicboysoftware.com/blog/2009/05/rick-falkvinge-copyright-regime-vs-civil-liberties/

Personally, iI've never liked 5 years, it's short enough that lawyers
negotiations (which can already last 1.5-2 years) can just be
extended, and they get to the point where they say 'no, sorry'.
Myself, I favour a 14+14 term. 14 automatic, with an expensive option
to register for one 14 year extension, with a national government-run
database. Or maybe then a 5+9+14. The 5 automatic, but with a
lower-cost 9 year extension, and a longer 14. It gives creators long
enough to deal with lawyers without the timebomb of expiry it also
deals with the problems of restrictions on works deemed by their
owners to be non-commercially viable, but later bought up in a job
lot, and resurrected. It deals with the main issues our critics have,
and should be a good first step, as it deals with the reduction we're
aiming for. The minority of works deemed non-commercially viable are
freed, the other works have the rightsholders clearly identified
(which can be a problem right now), the overall term is shorter (under
that proposal, all works from 1982 would be PD no matter what as of
the end of next month). To me, it addresses EVERY argument our
opposition can make with reasonable answers and positions, without any
need to get preachy, philosophical, theoretical or pseudo-religious,
which will be the key to success - dealing with the common person in
terms they can understand.

> This does however causes a dilemma with free sorftware (GPL etc):
> "The GNU General Public License and other copyleft licenses use copyright
> law to defend freedom for every user. The GPL permits everyone to publish
> modified works, but only under the same license. Redistribution of the
> unmodified work must also preserve the license. And all redistributors must
> give users access to the software's source code."
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html
> We do want free licences like GPL to have effect without todays copyright
> time (the implications on other content such as media is currently
> unacceptable!) so should we have exceptions on free licences or is a
> copyright of 20 years sufficient to not have a negative effect in the
> protection that the free licences are trying to protect? RMS also presents
> other solutions such as all closed software should be released with source
> code after the copyright time expires etc. that can be discussed.
> So how do we find a compromise that works?
>
> - Nicolas
>   PPI / PPSE member
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Pasi Palmulehto
> <scoffer at kofeiini.riippuvuus.net> wrote:
>>
>> Good morning.
>>
>> Here are some thoughts that have been circulating between myself and a
>> couple of active members.
>>
>> I'm not saying, by any means, that what I'll present is a perfect idea,
>> neither does it represent an official stand of the Finnish Pirate Party.
>> Rather: this sounds good to me but are there any problems? There usually
>> are a few when something sounds too good.
>>
>> The idea might be called "3-step usage rights" (I will not use the term
>> copyright, since it doesn't fit here anymore) or forced licensing
>> (sounds nasty).
>>
>> The main idea is to remove all restrictions from private non-commercial
>> use of currently copyrighted information (I will not say file-sharing
>> since it's only a part of it), to remove limitations from creating
>> derivates, mash ups, mixes and such, except from a small compensation to
>> original creators from actual sales, and finally, after a bit longer
>> time, to move the work into public domain.
>>
>> I'll start with timeline story.
>>
>> xx - Birth of work (Hasn't yet been released, no-one can really use it
>> yet)
>>
>> 0d - Release of work. Anyone is free to use it non-commercially for
>> private purposes. Creator of work has (or has been granted) 5 years
>> exclusive usage priviledges.
>>
>> 5y - Work is 5 years old and it becomes free for any commercial use.
>> Creator has no rights to deny it from anywhere, but creators will get
>> compensated from the price the work is sold. For example, say a record
>> label will make their own collection CD including the work. Record label
>> must then pay a 10% (total) fee for the creators of the price (not
>> profit) of the CD. In cases where the compensation cannot be
>> realistically estimated from the price, an option of a bulk compensation
>> could be considered. Mash-ups and remixes, where the used parts are not
>> significant or critical for creating a new art work, do not need to pay
>> the fee (in Finland we have citate rights, I think fair use includes
>> about the same).
>>
>> 20y - At this point the work has got enough protection for making some
>> profit for the creator, or if it hasn't...it probably never will. The
>> work will move into public domain (in Finland PD would still retain some
>> "moral rights", most importantly one close to CC-by, or the right to be
>> recognized as the original creator, which I think is good.)
>>
>> Teorically, the last step could come to effect after longer time since
>> there are no more limits for who can use whose art, but personally I
>> think there is no need for more than 20 years.
>>
>> I'll go through the last part very quickly - I hope the point is not
>> lost.
>> All this could be pretty easily achieved with a works database
>> (databank) what would include every artistic work that the creator
>> wishes to be potentially compensated for. If the work isn't entered
>> there, all the above protections will not apply. The database would work
>> pretty automatically:  it would list every work, allow searches and
>> sorting by popularity, and work as a payment gateway (company ->
>> database -> creator).
>> In this model, copyright societies (as they call themselves) could still
>> exists if writers, performers, transformers ;) or photographers want
>> them to. They would see that companies pay for using works and they
>> could also deal with the databank by updating info of works instead of
>> artist (if artists want so). But overall, they wouldn't be as crucial
>> anymore (as for now, you can't really even get a CD for sale on
>> supermarket without being a customer of a copyright society).
>>
>>
>> Okay...one big messy post, please give some feedback - pros and cons.
>> The main goal is to liberate the use of works of art - commercially and
>> non-commercially. The secondary goal is to ensure income for creators.
>> Performers are much lower on priority here, since they have effective
>> profit mechanisms that are not under any viable threat.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pasi "Scoffa" Palmulehto
>> Leader of Finnish Pirate Party
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>