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

[Pasi Palmulehto]

On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 10:01 +0100, Christian Hufgard wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> Well, that's exactly what GEMA takes care of. But _why_ do we want to take
> the authors right to use his work commercially away?

I'm sorry but I still don't understand what you mean take away?
Author would have monopoly on the work for first 5 years and full rights
to sell the work for rest of his/her natural or even unnatural long
life.
Work simply wouldn't have authors monopoly anymore after 5 years, but
author would still get compensated by use of the work for the next 20
years. After that, there's no compensation anymore but sure, he/she/it
can still sell it too.

If you are asking why do we even want to touch the commercial use part,
I think you should read some of pirate parties texts, it's way too big
thing to start from the beginning here.


> >> > 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.
> 
> So what? Nobody is forced to use GSM... And if somebody decides, to use a
> patented work as a standard, thats espicially his problem.

So you don't find it a problem if two man invents a bicycle in different
countries, both have invested whole assets in it and only one of them
can sell it because of patents? Or if GSM networks are build around the
globe and one manufacturer could, if wanted, tell everyone else "you
aren't anymore allowed to manufacture gsm mobile phones."?

> > Problem is that patented information needs to be free to use _much_
> > faster,
> 
> Everybody can read and improve them - and release the new knowledge as free.

But if you invented late 90's a touch screen for computers and patented
it, most likely nobody would be allowed to start manufacturing even
phones with touch screen - too same technology.

btw. even html hyperlinks are patented, thank god at least such patents
are not seen valid.


> > some even might have direct link on saving lives.
> 
> And some others might cost lives. That a totally different issue and might
> be treated separatly.

Yes, gun etc. patents would come free for use faster too, I don't see a
problem in that.

But I think this topic is a wrong place for patents vs no patents
discussion, ppi list already goes from topic to another too easily.

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