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

[Pasi Palmulehto]

On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 09:33 +0100, Christian Hufgard wrote:
> Pasi Palmulehto wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> This problem has been solved. In germany GEMA takes money for created
> copies. If you have had no legal contract to create the copy, you'll be
> sent to court.

Umh...Talk was about the time after first 5 years when it would be legal
to use the work commercially, just with compensation with money.

> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> What about the legal right to sell copies? Why do you want to take it away
> from the creator? Where is the public interest in that point? If private
> non commercial copies are free, why also take the commercial right?

I don't really think moral rights have nothing to do with legality to
sell copies on this 3-step model. First 5-years it would be legal only
for the author and those who have got permission from author. After 5
years everybody else can do it also - but it don't prevent author from
doing it too.

> > 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.
> 
> Patents are public! So today everybody can base new work upon patented stuff.

Most of the pirates I know, want to seize patents for good. Patents also
have long protection time when nobody cant do the same work described in
patent, even the work itself would be another authors, not patenters
idea. Even as crazy thing as this one; All gsm mobile phone
manufacturers must currently pay for Nokia since Nokia has patented part
of GSM technology that is still used.

Problem is that patented information needs to be free to use _much_
faster, some even might have direct link on saving lives. Thou I don't
yet think all the patents should be removed (nor I think they must be
saved), reverse engineering don't yet fully replace useful patented
information if it would be free from the start.

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