[pp.int.general] Some parting thoughts

[Reinier Bakels]

> The term "compensation" is appropriate for paying someone to do a job,
> That does not fit the situation of playing a copy of a published work.
> Internet users do not owe any "compensation" to artists.

You should acknowledge that artists often *initially* are poorly paid, 
because they are supposed to get more money the more often people listen to 
(or read) their works. Example: some years ago there was (at least in my 
country) turmoil from journalists who protested against the re-publication 
of their printed journal articles on the Internet without compensation. It 
seems outrageous, but it is understandable given the fact that these 
journalists often are not well-paid.

IMHO the conclusion should be that journalist and artists are decently paid 
as soon as they deliver their work. This is normal practice in other 
industries. Labour and contract law should cater for that. Remember that 
copyright contract law is still a controversial item. Germany has copyright 
contract law. In my country (The Netherlands), there are plans for ages, but 
nothing happens. The reason for special copyright contract law is to protect 
the author/artist against the publisher/record company - like labour 
contract law protects workers against employers. I don't know whether that 
applies in the US as well, but in Europe it is normal that general contract 
law (which assumes equal parties) is complemented by special contract law if 
one party is supposed to be weaker: the employee, the consumer, and: the 
artist.

reinier