<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18702">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS">Is there a Pirate Parties
position on the concept of a "cultural flatrate", as proposed (for instance?) by
Volker Grassmuck? It is about the idea that all internet users pay a fixed
amount which is subsequently divided among copyright owners (by collective
rights organisations).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS">It may be a practical
solution to resolve potentially escalating conflicts and top prevent draconic
measures such as the "three strikes" approach, and imprisonments.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS">But still it seems some
sort of capitulation to the record and film industry. The underlying assumption
is that copyright remains as it was (during the last decades). I udnerstand why
this proposal focusses on music and films, yet I think it is only a very limited
subset of all material covered by copyright: HTML files are also copyright
protected by default. Which lead to the conclusion that this system will
specifically cater for one very specific category of works: the works of
producers who managed to make most noise in the political arena.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS">Furthermore, some of the
underlying assumptions seem wrong to me. Like the assumption that (very)
roughly anybody over time downloads the same amount (expressed in euro's) per
month. Some people may download MP3's like hell, others only access freely
available material and paid MP3 stores. and we must not forget that levies on
blank carriers are supposed to cover the "free" downloads as well.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS">A more fundamental problem
imho is the problem how to divide the collected money. Volcker Grassmuck argues
hat it is feasible to implement a kind of accounting system that keeps track of
the downloaded amount of material from different sources, and he proposes to pay
the copyright owners pro rata. This assumes a strict econoomic rationale for
copyright, which differs from the idea that copyright primarily serves the
purposes of fostering cukltural diversty - and payments to authors are just a
means to this end. Actually even present law respects that there are also
cutural purposes, next to economic purposes, which is e.g. expressed in
(statutory) rules that require collecting societies to spend a certain
percentage to "cultural" purposes (DE:
Urheberrechtswahrnemungsgesetz).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS">If cultural diversity
really is the purpose, imho the above economic model should be abandoned
completely. Then the collected money should be distributed solely based on
cultural priorities. Not by the collecting societies, because they work
primarily for the mass entertainment industry, and the y are hardly
democratically controlled.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS">Effectively, "cultural"
(flat)rates are a kind of tax. Subject to the (constitutional) rule: no taxation
without representation. That may seem unusual, but this type of scheme is
already implemented for public broadcasting: the "flat" rate (NL: in the general
means, DE: GEZ) is not distributed by accountants, but by broadcastng policy
authorities.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS">But perhaps such schemes
are unattractive for the IFPI and the RIAA: they simply apply age-old tricks of
rent-seeking: making a business out of a government loby wich leads to
legislation that creates a money stream to these organisations and their
members.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face="Comic Sans MS">reinier</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>