FYI, an interesting bit of text:
Richard Stallman today published an Open Letter to Brazil’s President
Elect Dilma Rousseff and the Citizens of Brazil. He congratulates
Brazil on its readiness to introduce the freedom to file-share into
copyright law. He proposes improvements to ensure that the levy goes
to authors and artists rather than to companies and to avoid favoring
superstars. He also suggests a mechanism for incentivizing foreign
artists to work for the adoption of the Sharing Licence in their own
country.
in English:
http://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.en.html
in Portuguese (translated by Pablo Hess, with support by Alexandre Oliva):
http://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.pt.html
Also see the campaign website for the Sharing Licence and sign the
petition to ensure that the „momentous improvement” of the freedom to
share in copyright law will actually happen:
http://www.compartilhamentolegal.org
Dear President Elect Rousseff and the Citizens of Brazil
In Brazil's debate over copyright law, a momentous improvement has
been suggested: freedom to share published works, in exchange for a
levy collected from Internet users over time. To recognize the
usefulness to society of Internet file sharing among the citizens will
be a great advance, but that plan raises a second question: how to use
the funds collected? If used properly, they provide the chance for a
second great advance, in support for the arts.
Publishers typically propose to use the money to "compensate" the
"rights holders" -- two bad ideas together. "Rights holders" is a
disguised way of directing the money mainly to publishers rather than
artists. As for "compensate", that concept is inappropriate, because
it means to pay someone for doing a job, or to make up for taking
something away from him. Neither of those descriptions applies to the
practice of file sharing, since listeners and viewers have not hired
publishers or artists to do a job, and sharing more copies does not
take anything from them. (When they claim to be harmed, it is by
comparison with their dreams.) Publishers use the term "compensate" to
pressure others to view the issue their way.
There is no need to "compensate" anyone for citizens' file sharing,
but supporting artists is useful for the arts and for society. If
Brazil adopts a sharing license fee system, it should design the
system for distribution of the money so as to support the arts
efficiently. With this system in place, artists will benefit when
people share their work and will encourage sharing.
What is the efficient way to support the arts with these funds?
First of all, if the goal is to support artists, don't give the funds
to publishing companies instead. Supporting the publishers does little
to support artists. For instance, record companies pay musicians
little or nothing of the money that comes in from sale of records: the
musicians' record contracts are cunningly arranged so that musicians
do not receive "their" share of record sales until a record sells a
tremendous number of copies. If file sharing levy funds are
distributed to record companies, they would not reach the musicians.
Book contracts are not quite as outrageous, but even authors of
best-sellers may get little. What society needs is to support these
artists and authors better.
I propose therefore to distribute the funds solely to the creative
participants, and ensure in the law that publishers cannot claim it
back from them or deduct it from money otherwise owed them.
The levy would be collected initially by the user's Internet Service
Provider. How should it travel to the artist? It might pass through
the hands of a state agency; it might pass through a collecting
society, provided that collective societies are reformed so that any
group of artists can start their own.
However, artists must not be compelled to work through the existing
collecting societies, because these may have antisocial rules. For
instance, the collecting societies of some European countries forbid
their members to publish anything under licenses that permit sharing
(for instance, using any one of the Creative Commons licenses). If
Brazil's fund for supporting artists includes foreign artists, they
must not be compelled to join those collecting societies in order to
receive their shares of Brazilian funds.
Whatever chain the money follows, none of the instutions in the chain
(ISP, state agency, or collecting society) may have any authority to
alter what share goes to each artist. That should be firmly set by the
rules of the system.
But what should those rules be? What is the best way to apportion the
money among all the creative participants?
The most obvious method is to compute each artist's share in direct
proportion to her work's popularity. (Popularity can be measured by
inviting 100,000 randomly chosen people to provide the lists of the
works they have played.) That's what "compensate the rights holders"
proposals typically do. But that method of distribution is not very
effective for promoting the arts, because a large fraction of the
funds would go to the few superstars, who are already rich or at least
comfortable, leaving little money to support all the artists who
really need it.
I propose instead to pay each artist according to the cube root of his
or her popularity. More precisely, the system could ascertain the
popularity of each work, divide that among the work's artists to get a
figure for each artist, then compute the cube root of that, and set
the artists' shares in proportion to these cube roots.
The effect of this would be to increase the shares of moderately
popular artists by reducing the shares of superstars. Each individual
superstar would still get more than an individual non-superstar, even
several times as much, but not hundreds or thousands of times as much.
With this offsetting, a given total sum of money will adequately
support a larger number of artists.
Promoting art and authorship supporting artists and authors is the
proper goal of a sharing license fee because it is the proper goal of
copyright itself.
A final question is whether the system should support foreign authors
and artists. It would seem natural for Brazil to demand reciprocity
from other countries as a condition of giving support to their authors
and artists, but I think that would be a strategic mistake. The best
way to convince other countries to adopt a plan like this is not by
pressuring them through their artists--they won't feel the lack of
these payments because they are not accustomed to receiving any--but
rather by educating their artists about the merits of this system.
Including them in the system is the way to educate them.
Another option is to include foreign artists and authors but cut the
payment down to 1/10 when their coutries do not join in reciprocal
cooperation. Imagine telling an author, "You have received $50 from
Brazil's sharing license levy. If your country had a similar sharing
license levy and made a reciprocal agreement with Brazil, you would
have received $500 from Brazil just now, plus the amount from your own
country."
I know of one possible obstacle to adopting this system in Brazil:
Free Exploitation Treaties such as the one which established the World
Trade Organization. These are designed to make governments act for the
benefit of business rather than that of the people; they are the
enemies of democracy and of most people's well-being. (We thank Lula
for saving South America from ALCA.) Some of them demand "compensation
for rights holders" as part of their general policy of favoritism for
business.
Fortunately this obstacle can be surmounted. If Brazil finds itself
compelled to pay for the misguided goal of "compensating rights
holders", it can still adopt the system presented above. Here is how.
The first step towards ending an unjust dominion is to deny its
legitimacy. if Brazil is compelled to "compensate rights holders", it
should denounce that imposition as wrong and yield to it temporarily.
The denunciation could be stated in the preamble of the law itself,
like this:
Whereas Brazil wishes to encourage the useful and helpful practice of
sharing published works on the Internet.
Whereas Brazil is compelled by the World Trade Organization to ransom
this freedom from the rights holders, even though that money will
mainly enrich publishers rather than supporting artists and authors.
Whereas Brazil wishes, aside from that imposed requirement, to support
artists and authors better than the existing copyright system does.
Then, after establishing a levy for the sake "compensation", establish
a second additional levy (equal or greater in amount) for supporting
authors and artists. The wasteful, misdirected plan for "compensation"
should not be a replacement for the useful, efficient plan. So
implement the useful, efficient plan that supports artists directly,
because that is good for society, and implement the "compensation"
required by the WTO but only so long as the WTO retains the power to
impose it.
This will begin the transition to a new copyright system that suits
the Internet age.
Thank you for considering these suggestions.
Copyright (c) 2010 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and
redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice
is preserved.
----
http://www.vgrass.de/
http://waste.informatik.hu-berlin.de/Grassmuck/
_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org
--
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio
Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
[email protected]
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
[email protected]
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
[email protected]
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
[email protected]
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t_______________________________________________
The Uganda Linux User Group: http://linux.or.ug
Send messages to this mailing list by addressing e-mails to: [email protected]
Mailing list archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Mailing list settings: http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug
To unsubscribe: http://kym.net/mailman/options/lug
The Uganda LUG mailing list is generously hosted by INFOCOM:
http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The mailing list host is not responsible for them in any
way.
