[pp.int.general] Some parting thoughts

[Reinier Bakels]

> 2009/10/23 Reinier Bakels <r.bakels at planet.nl>:
>> You are simply reinventing copyright.
>
> No I'm not, and I suggest you use inline comments (like I'm doing now)
> so you can point out where I'm supposedly "reinventing copyright".

I think we are confused by the length of this threat. Originally I commented 
to RMS objecting the idea of copyright as a compensation, notably for 
republication of writings. I argued that - indeed - in an ideal world, this 
kind of copyright should not exist. BUT that it is a matter of social 
justice to accepted it *given* the way journalists are presently 
compensated. Oops! RMS will be outrageous if I use the word "compensation".

>> Well, somehow it is reasonable. But
>> often it is very unreasonable. If you believe that present copyright is 
>> OK,
>
> I believe no such thing> My position is that non-commercial copying
> should be legal, and the term of copyright should be shortened. This
> is mainstream PP thinking.
RMS and I went beyond that. I think it actually serves a political purpose 
to emphasize that there are other objects of copyright than (music and 
movie) entertainment. E.g. are you aware that this post is subject to 
copyright? If it is stored on a hard disk, you may even pay for it, via the 
media levies in countries like Germany, IIRC. Mailing list contributors 
could apply for a refund via a collecting society! Potentially a flame war 
can make you very rich.
Don't get me wrong, I am only illustrating the crazyness of the system. 
Anyone promoting media levies should be prepared to accept a levy on blank 
paper. Next step is to tax the air used for singing.
>
>> don't pollute the Pirate Party mailing list. Incidentally, the process 
>> you
>> are going through is not uncommon. I heard the copyright reform guru 
>> Laurens
>
> ITYM "Lawrence"
Ah, thanks a lot. But you understood whom I meant.
>> Lessig
>>
>> I don't understand why you are so upset from by ideas about journalists.
>
> I don't know what you mean.
It was someone else on this list. I talk to the list. Someone said that 
copyright is the only protection for journalists (or simular words). Anyway, 
the problems are very different for journalists. They would not mind for a 
five year copyright: a five year old news item is no longer a news item. And 
noncommercial filesharing is not an item for text, afaik.
Still it is useful for imagination to be aware that legally there is no 
difference between music and text. Every web page (beyond a very basic level 
of originality) is by law protected by copyright. No, you are not a criminal 
if you browse the web: there is something called an implied licence. But 
then again: why not assume an implied licence for music?
The answer: the *greed* of SONY, EMI and a handful of other media 
conclomerates.
reinier