<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">The zero marginal cost argument does not help you. The marginal cost of
copyrighted works always was relatively low (or zero) - but that was
actually the reason to *introduce* copyright.<br></blockquote><br>I think one of the initial intentions of copyright was forcing publishers to give some of the profits they earned when they published authors' creations. Because it might cost about zero to print a book, but book publishers are going to make a profit.<br>
<br>My opinion is that, in a business, you have to sell something that people will pay for. And if people don't buy it the problem is not on the people that get a copy for free, it is in your product. I love AC/DC, I got all of their albums, but I didn't pay for them, I downloaded them for free. But Last Friday I went to their concert and paid 70€ for that. I didn't like the product "CD album", but I liked the product "concert tickets", and had I not downloaded their whole discography for free I wouldn't have bought the concert tickets nor a sole CD album.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Reinier Bakels <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:r.bakels@planet.nl" target="_blank">r.bakels@planet.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
"I respect the artists work, and if an artist does not want me, to share his work with my friends, I just look for another artist who does so"<br>
<br>
Well, I disagree again. If AC/DC doesn't want me to make a copy of their albums, I will anyway copy them for free. And I think I'm entitled to, because it's like copying an idea, it's free, zero costs. If artists want money, they have to find it in services or products that have more than zero costs, like a CD, DVD, or a concert.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
The zero marginal cost argument does not help you. The marginal cost of copyrighted works always was relatively low (or zero) - but that was actually the reason to *introduce* copyright.<br>
<br>
I think there are much stronger arguments.<br>
- A basic principle of law is non-discrimination (equal treatment). Flatrate compensation schemes only cater for commercial music and movies. There is more under the sun than just movies and music, and more than just commerce. Internet conveys zillions of bytes. The focus on commercial music and movies has just one reason: traditional producers of such material suffer most from Internet, and they want to live on as if technology had not progressed. Like the fireman on electric locomotives in the UK. It may be helpful to suggest full compensation of *all* authors of *all* types of work. This is an administrative and enforcement nightmare, a "reductio ad absurdum".<br>
- Not all information is copyrighted material, and not all copyrighted material is subject to exclusive rights. Lawyers debate for ages what are actually "works" in the sense of copyright. Originality seems a basic requirement. Cultural value is rejected, because it requires a cultural judgement wich is alien to law. While the originality threshhold is low, factual data are clearly excluded. That is the reason why database law was introduced in EU, but again, it is limited - and it does not only rely on the type of data, but also on the type of use.<br>
Even if material is unbdoubtly a "work" in the sense of copyright, it is subject to exceptions, whether the closed European system or the open US "fair use" system. Not the nature of the work, but the nature of the use is decisive for these limitations. Flatrates ignore this, again.<br>
Flatrate proponents may argue that the Law of Large Numbers allows rough estimates to be made: like: 30% of traffic is actually due to pay copyright, as a long term average. I guess it is not true even as a zero-order approximation (but I have to admit that I do not have solid proof, e.g. an obvious case that proves that the assumption is wrong).<br>
- We already touched the enforcement problem. Imho the only viable solution is to turn the "flatrate" into a tax = a fee disconnected from any consumption of use. And the tax money should be redistributed with the explicit purpose to remedy market failure and to foster cultural diversity. The entertainment industry should serve a cultural purpose, not vice-versa.<br>
<br>
Is it tricky that a government decides on cultural priorities? Well, with public TV and radio network it happens all the time.<br>
Perhapx the unique Dutch system of broacdcasting asociations shold be followed: it brings its own kind of democracy. These (not for profit) associations are dependent on members, not for the money, but for the broadcasting rights. Otoh, people argue that the BBC as a public broadcasting monopolist makes the best programmes in the world.<br>
<br>
Think beyond. Think PP!<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
reinier <br></font><div><div></div><div>
____________________________________________________<br>
Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>
<a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net" target="_blank">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>