<div class="gmail_quote">2010/11/3 Richard Stallman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rms@gnu.org">rms@gnu.org</a>></span><br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
I have seen a different argument:<br>
<br>
1. File-sharing is good.<br></blockquote><div></div><div> </div><div>If filesharing is good, why I need to pay to use it? If is good, they passes <font size="2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_three-step_test">Berne three-step test</a>, then it would be a "exception" like fair use in the USA.<br>
<br></font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
2. Simply legalizing sharing would lead to punishment by the WTO.<br></blockquote><div><br>Not. becouse the TRIPS treaty have a hole for "exceptions" to skip copyright monopoly, for example, the fair use mentioned.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
3. A flat rate system offers an excuse that can be given to<br>
the WTO, so as to legalize sharing.<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>Only if I consider that filesharing is "bad" than it not passes Berne three-step test. If is "bad", you can create a tax to compensate the social damage from this "bad pratice" that is permited to people do. But, perhaps, filesharing is good, how you mentioned. So, you don't need to compensate anything.<br>
<br><br><br>---<br>Rodrigo Pereira.<br>Brazil<br></div></div><div style="visibility: hidden; display: inline;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup"></div><style type="text/css">#avg_ls_inline_popup { position:absolute; z-index:9999; padding: 0px 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; width: 240px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 13px;}</style>