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

[Pasi Palmulehto]

> I could be in favor of this 3-step program with certain changes.
> 
>     0d - Release of work. Anyone is free to use it non-commercially for
>     private purposes.
> 
> "Private purposes" is not enough -- sharing of copies must be allowed.

True. I took it was obvious but still true. Copying (getting & sharing) and using it.

>     5y - Work is 5 years old and it becomes free for any commercial use.
> 
>      Record label
>     must then pay a 10% (total) fee for the creators of the price (not
>     profit) of the CD.
> 
> In simple situations this would be easy to work out, but in complex
> situations it might be hard to design any good system]to decide how to
> divide the money.

Yes I've been thinking about it too. When there's use of many different
work in part of bigger system (code and research data is good example in
this one) and benefits are not simply calculated by how much it is used.
In these cases it would be easy to say "deal with it, make an agreement
with the author" but it would be long and hard way to do it. The author
might even demand oversized compensation just to prevent using the work.

Maybe there should be different pre-defined compensation sums depending
on what kind of use it is? Or just some kind of formula how to count
benefits of using the work on such complex situations. I bet they still
would be better than current system.

> 
>     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.)
> 
> Something needs to be done about the moral right to limit
> modifications.  As long as that moral right continues, the work never
> really enters the public domain.

I think there are actually only one moral right that really needs to be
saved, right to be known as original author and it should never end nor
it should not be a burden to anyone who uses the work.

About the rest of moral rights - part of them would basically be
abandoned since they cannot be applied any more (right to deny use of
work if it morally offends author, right to go see the work, regret
right).

> 
> I suggest avoiding use of the term "creator" for authors and artists;
> that term is propaganda.

You are probably right, author is more commonly used also. The reason I
used creator was because in Finland there has been a lot of claims PP
people wouldn't know difference between performer and author (false
claim but after that, I've been more careful what words I use and even
stress it a bit). I don't know how it sounds to you, but for me creator
isn't pointing to god no more than author :P

Artists sounds weird when talking about software or books and I like to
discuss with words that can be applied on every section of
information/culture.

I've also started to think, could this same system be applied on patents
(disregard medicine and such patents with straight effect to people
health). Protection time seems like a working one, if needed at all, but
it would also speed up development process and no whining about needed
time for making profit to cover expenses.


-- 
Pasi "Scoffa" Palmulehto
Leader of Finnish Pirate Party