[A2k] Compartilhamento legal! – Brazil is putting an end to the ‘war on copying,’ at R$34.500.000 per month
Philippe Aigrain (perso Wanadoo)
philippe.aigrain at wanadoo.fr
Tue Sep 7 07:35:31 PDT 2010
Of course all your questions are valid.
The issues of rights of non-market intermediaries will call for complex
delineation (in particular for "mixed" ones who are non-market for some
activities and provide commercial services or get advertising income for
others). But this complexity exists also for any recognition of sharing
whether or not it is associated with a financing mechanism.
As for the "need or not" issue, I am personally convinced that it is on
the contrary a pervert effect of the war on piracy to hide the real need
for new financing the digital cultural, expressive and information
commons. When one studies in detail capability building and project
financing in these domain, one finds a severe shortage of means for
projects and for the ability of people to invest more time in getting
better at what they like to do. The real question is which financing:
Can it be just basic income ? Voluntary resource pooling Kickstarter
mode, combined with indirect market returns ? Or does one need statutory
society-wide resource pooling and in which proportion ? And at which
level should they be defined (geographically, domain-wise). I am
convinced that society-wide pooling is necessary to enable a many-to-all
cultural society. But I have no pretense to close the debate of this
subject. I would be really happy if you would just say that the issue is
Le 07/09/2010 15:30, Federico Heinz a écrit :
> On 07/09/2010, Philippe Aigrain (perso Wanadoo) wrote:
>> 1- Putting in place a new social pact based on both the recognition
>> of non-market sharing between individuals as a legitimate right and
>> a new contribution by Internet broadband subscribers to creativity
>> used and developed on the Internet. There is a powerful momentum
>> for this idea of a new social pact.
> While this idea indeed is much more palatable, I'm afraid there are
> still a few kinks that must be worked out. One I can think of the top
> of my head is how community networks fit in this model. As long as
> we have commercial ISPs monopolizing the connectivity business, we
> might be able to pull it off, but what happens when non-commercial,
> unlicensed entities become a larger force in this market?
>> Even critics of compensatory approaches such as Fede adopt its way
>> of thinking. He compares the global amount of the contribution with
>> the turnover of the major companies in music, while the
>> contribution proposed in Brazil (and in my own work) covers all
>> media, including Internet-native media, and, I hope, including
>> voluntarily shared works.
> The comparison was made only because it was a data point mentioned in
> the original paper which started this thread, as an answer to "is it
> enough money?", implying than "more than half of the turnover of the
> largest music labels" was enough... so clearly 113% of that is
> Still, Philippe, you make a compelling case of something we might
> want to do, but many question remains unanswered: do we NEED to do it?
> Would we be fixing a REAL problem, or just a perceived one? And even
> if it does help, how much? Would the expected increase, both
> qualitative and quantitative in works and authors, be worth the cost
> to society?
> As I said before, the shortage of works and authors in absence of
> compensation, as predicted by copyright theorists, has completely
> failed to manifest itself. Rather, the exact opposite has happened. Do
> we really want to mess with a system that WORKS? Is there any way of
> knowing in advance that we won't break it in the process?
> A2k mailing list
> A2k at lists.keionline.org
More information about the A2k