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

[Jorge]

Interesting information, Kaj.

A compulsory license after 5y that allow anyone to use it commercially 
(paying 10%, for example) could be a good idea. It means not only the 
end of the monopoly, but also new opportunities for artists, that could 
multiplicate the possibilities to earn money.

Thinking about the development countries, like Brasil, Argentina, India, 
México it could be a good solution for the "piracy" on the streets. The 
sellers of illegal contents have an important role in promoting the 
access to culture for the people who have low income or no broadband 
internet access. Today, this is a social problem, treated by the police.

Best regards,

Jorge
PartidoPirata.org

PS: we should refer to artists as “co-creators”. That is, because no one 
ever creates entirely alone. We don´t live inside bubbles. : )

Kaj Sotala escreveu:
> Quoting Pasi Palmulehto <scoffer at kofeiini.riippuvuus.net>:
>> 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.
>
> As I was the one who came up with this model, a few words on the 
> background.
>
> The model was basically inspired by two things:
>
> 1) People saying that 5-10 years of copyright is too short. The people 
> in question making pretty convincing arguments.
> 2) Comparing the sales of books and recordings vs. live performances 
> of songs. As we probably all know, books sell out pretty quickly, 
> their sales typically falling to close to nothing after the first 
> year. For recordings, the lifetime is a bit longer, but two thirds of 
> the sales are still made within the first five years.
>
> However, a while back I contacted Teosto, the performance rights 
> organization that collects royalties on behalf of songwriters and 
> composers in Finland. I asked for statistics on how old the songs that 
> people in Finland were performing were. Here the results were 
> different: while new songs still got the most playtime, older songs 
> still got played a lot. Looking at the statistics for payments that 
> were made in June 2009 (apparently mostly covering performances from 
> the previous year - they were a bit unclear on that), songs written or 
> composed in 2008 had been performed 574 517 times (13 797 individual 
> songs). As for older songs:
>
> * Written or composed in 2007: 517 612 performances, 11 520 songs
> * Written or composed in 2006: 310 504 performances, 9 626 songs
> * Written or composed in 2005: 231 715 performances, 10 235 songs
> * Written or composed in 2004: 177 224 performances, 7 806 songs
> * Written or composed in 2003: 150 794 performances, 6 808 songs
> * Written or composed in 2002: 140 778 performances, 6 702 songs
> * Written or composed in 2001: 139 594 performances, 5 933 songs
> * Written or composed in 2000: 131 218 performances, 5 285 songs
>
> As you can see, the drop-off is a lot less drastic than for other 
> forms of culture. I wasn't provided exact figures for songs older than 
> this, but they told me that songs that were 25 years old had been 
> performed almost as many times as songs that were 10 years old. It's 
> only after that point that there really starts to be a drastic drop.
>
> So I thought - what's the main difference making songs different from 
> books and recordings? Well, obviously the fact that it's a *lot* 
> easier to get a permission to perform a song than it is to get 
> permission to reissue a book or recording. Most of the time, you just 
> inform Teosto that you're performing a certain song, pay them a lump 
> sum, and that's it. For books and recordings, you need to track down 
> the rights owner, negotiate for permission, etc.
>
> But thanks to the collection agency-based approach employed in the 
> case of songs, the main harms of a long copyright are actually 
> avoided. Sure, the system is still more inefficient than if there was 
> no copyright-based monopoly, but let's be honest - while the original 
> authors still have a chance to ban their works from being performed, 
> that rarely happens, so this is hardly even much of a monopoly anymore.
>
> Thus the logical conclusion that instead of entirely abolishing 
> commercial copyright after a very short term, it'd be better to 
> introduce a similar system. Not only would it be a lot easier to lobby 
> for than the more drastic "5 years, period", it would also make me, 
> personally, feel better knowing that the original authors would still 
> get some income even after a longer time.
>
> -- Kaj Sotala / Spokesman, Piraattipuolue
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>


-- 
Seja livre use Linux! 

Já compartilhou hoje?