<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Reinier Bakels wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:19096DDBC3FC4D38A2601D4C5BBF36CE@RBB2008"
type="cite">Currently I am at a conference in the US, organised by the
"Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialog". Yesterday there was a panel on
copyright. It seems that leading scholars converge to the idea that the
interests of copyright owners are best met by collective agreements
e.g. between ISPs and collective rights organisations.
<br>
<br>
While this avoids problems like massive monitoring</blockquote>
Disagree on that: think about <a
href="http://docs.google.com/Present?docid=dhpvc2mr_115m5prjqd5&skipauth=true">Choruss</a>,
and its self-declared purpose to extend its surveillance manners from
the Colleges to the ISPs.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:19096DDBC3FC4D38A2601D4C5BBF36CE@RBB2008"
type="cite">deterrent criminal sanctions</blockquote>
It's not clear, you can check <a
href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081208-voluntary-campus-wide-music-licenses-could-stop-the-lawsuits.html">some</a>
<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20081209/0144083060.shtml">pages</a>
that, as PIRATA, has many doubts concerning that issue.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:19096DDBC3FC4D38A2601D4C5BBF36CE@RBB2008"
type="cite">levies</blockquote>
Disagree: again, Choruss aims for a yearly fee. You may say <i>it's
not a levy</i> ... however, it works the same as media & devices
levies: it's collected no matter whether you use your internet
connection for filesharing protected works or not.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:19096DDBC3FC4D38A2601D4C5BBF36CE@RBB2008"
type="cite"> and DRM</blockquote>
Don't know about this.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:19096DDBC3FC4D38A2601D4C5BBF36CE@RBB2008"
type="cite"> I am not excited:
<br>
- Such schemes still are oriented towards traditional rights owners,
and ignore the advent of user-provided "2.0" content<br>
</blockquote>
Agree.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:19096DDBC3FC4D38A2601D4C5BBF36CE@RBB2008"
type="cite">- In particular, again the (outdated) record companies
primaily benefit. Well, some argue that the true author may benefit,
but I don't quite understand how.<br>
</blockquote>
Agree.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:19096DDBC3FC4D38A2601D4C5BBF36CE@RBB2008"
type="cite">- The redistribution problem is not solved. It is
generally acknowledged (even condified in Germany) that redistribution
should - at least to some extent - support cultural diversity, but the
mainstream obviously covers mass-culture. If cultural diversity is an
issue, the Collective Rights organisations are supposed to make
cultural policy. They are not suited for that. Fundamentally, under
such a regulation the collected money becomes a tax - "no taxation
without representation".<br>
</blockquote>
One of many levies & RMOs' contradictions, of course.<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Ayala<br>
( Aiarakoa )<br>
<br>
Partido
Pirata National Board's Chairman<br>
</body>
</html>