The EU will make a proposal for copyright reform this year. Are they satisfied with the legislative status quo? Let me know what you would think: What is important to you? Send an e-mail to julia. To the extent possible under law, the creator has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work. Es wird Sie aber nicht wundern, dass ich neben den positiven auch alarmierend-bedenkenswerte und negative Aspekte gefunden habe.
I agree absolutely with Lore Schultz-Wild that any harmonisation should not be to the Anglo-American model which most definitely makes Copyright Owners where Copyright is a tradable commodity more important than the Creators of the copyrighted work. As a consumer, of course I hate Digital Rights Management systems that prevent me from doing what I want with materials that I have purchased, and I am very much in favour of a practical way and legal way around the current situation. I am not completely familiar with the work your pirate party does in the EU, I am however familiar with what your party does in Germany, and that is the declared goal of destroying the base, that our lives as creators are built on.
We have a strong voice that speaks for the music creators in Germany, this voice is the voice of the GEMA. That is our voice, the voice of music creators in Germany that earn their living by creating lyrics and songs and films scores and so on. If you would listen to that voice, you would serve us a great deal. Instead you listen to the voices of people, who grew up in a world where stealing the work of others wasnt considered to be wrong any more, because it was easy and anonymus and everybody did it.
You gave refuge to the pirate bay, that made millions with the work of others and defended that organised crime with some left alternative nonsense ideology. I myself have very left wing political views, however what comes along with some left parties propositions towards my work makes me angry and frightened both at the same time. Solutions like that dont work and are no fun for anyone and no, not for the big ass labels, the evil music industry, and the artists and writers are too scared to open their mouth, I tell you as a writor and a friend of many artists and writers who think alike, only a tiny minority wants that!
There was a lot to be dealt with in music industry when the digitalisation of our world began, and there still is, but would you people just leave the first steps to us?? If you want our opinion, ask the GEMA, even if you dont like what they say, because yes, we want to earn money with our work, and yes, we want everyone that uses our work to pay and yes, we want to have a voice, wether we accept it when someone takes our ideas and wants to put them in another context. That is our right as the ones who had those ideas and if you dont like it, then think of something for yourselves, noone stands in your way!
As I see it, the GEMA has a lot of ideas for the coming years and is already trying to realise those. If you want to help us, support us in our fight to tell the public: We are the creators, we want to make a living with our work, the GEMA tries to help us doing that, dont bash it like mindless drones of a multinational cooperation named Google that spends Millions to mobilise the dumb against our struggle, so that they can make more money and we bleed for it. Streaming and Digital sales are by no means able to weigh out the losses in physical sales in the music industry, yet.
We all are looking for solutions, so we can still live off our work tomorrow. I dont think thats the concern your voters have about copyright, their concern is mostly about themselves being able to get everything for free, but please understand, we are speaking with one voice, listen to the GEMA, listen to the music industry, they share a lot of our interests, and when the money comes in and its time to divide it between creators, labels and artists, then we can speak again about the interests of artists and creators that have a smaller voice then the big industry.
Right now we all speak with one voice! Greetings from Munich,. Verstehen Sie? Zur Sicherheit noch einmal: Ich will bestimmen, wer meine Arbeit zu welchen Bedingungen nutzt. Ich beleidige Sie ja auch nicht. Welche VG hat ihrer Meinung nach also zu was aufgerufen? Ich kann nur davor warnen den Lobbyisten nachzugeben um es den USA u.
GB gleich zu tun. Das Wohl der Uhreber haben diese meist nicht im Blick. A Honorare. A takva je situaciju upravo sada. Sramotno je koliko autor dobije sredstava putem npr. Deezera, You Tuba itd, itd,….. Mora ju poticati. Ljudska kreativnost je smislila glazbu. Ljudska krrativnost je smislila internet.
Ljudska kreativnost je smislila EU. Peter Sunde hat auf einer Podiumsdiskussion in Wien z. Wer je ein Werk geschaffen hat, sollte den Unterschied kennen. Ich hoffe, das spricht sich endlich mal herum. Ich bin aber entschieden gegen ein Recht auf Remix ohne Einwilligung des Urhebers. Was ist Euch wichtig? Welche konkreten Probleme habt Ihr mit dem jetzigen Urheberrecht? Es ist legitim, an der Verwertung in neuen Medien mit verdienen zu wollen. Ich habe in den rund 30 Jahren, die ich mit Musikschaffen verbracht habe, ein einziges mal ein Problem mit dem Copyright gehabt.
In a nutshell: Ich habe mit dem Urheberrecht ebensoviel Probleme wie die USA mit Obamacare: Nicht das geringste, auch wenn manche gerne solches behaupten. Offen gesprochen, finde ich einiges sehr problematisch, was sie anstreben. Once upon a time, we built castles to protect ourselves and our properties from pirates.
Today, collecting societies have exactly the same protective role. Pirates even have changed clothes and arguments, but they still have the same purpose: pillage of our rights. In Greece we are having long discussions focused on your outrageous Report for changes of the Infosoc Directive. I qualify it as outrageous, because I cannot understand why you want us creators to offer our work to Society, to European Culture, and to digital intermediaries, without efficient and fair protection and adequate remuneration.
I strongly support the protests of all my colleagues and of my Collective Management Society AEPI, and urge you to reconsider your proposals. Das tun sie aber nicht mehr. Der Wert, bzw die Einspielergebnisse eines erfolgreichen Songs sind heute nur mehr ein Bruchteil dessen was sie noch vor 10 Jahren waren — freilich inflationsunbereinigt. Ich habe Angebote bekommen, viele angenommen, viele abgelent, manche nachverhandelt, mitunter hat man sich geeinigt, mitunter nicht. Aber hat mich jemals wer zu irgendetwas gezwungen? Ich habe keine meiner Unterschriften bereut.
Sooft Produktionen erfolgreich wurden, hab ich gut daran verdient. Wenn sie nicht erfolgreich wurden — hab ich meist weniger oder auch nichts daran verdient. Das ist auch in Ordnung so. Ein Lied zu schreiben, es zu konzipieren, es zu produzieren ist so viel mehr Arbeit als Sie ahnen. Das finden Sie gut so? Das ist komplett unausgewogen. Eine unrealistische Nebelkerze.
Ohne die Kreativen gibt es aber keine Inhalte!
Wohin rollen die Bahnen Europas, Wien, Kummer, Sebastian, Roberto, Fuster. Oder eben nicht. The energy sector is an important employer, and the continuing growth of jobs in the renewable energy sector is significant. Was Google etc.
Was Google etc. I think you are missing creation and art from your life and you are totally out of it I am afraid.. What you are …. No way! Cheers, Christopher. So many years the Societies who represent us, as authors, are struggling to ensure our undeniable right to be paid equitably for when someone uses our work and earns money out of it. Contrary to your claim, she is actually fighting for strengthening the position of authors. All the best, Christopher. Today it affects the daily lives of travelers who take a photo of the Eiffel tower at night, teenagers who record themselves dancing along to music on YouTube or blind people who buy a book with digital locks that prevent the conversion to a format that makes it readable to them.
These kinds of problems are what the report talks about. Hi Christopher, I was afraid that this would come up sooner or later: innocent children dancing on YouTube to innocent music, thus innocently contributing to pop culture — with no commercial interest at all. And here we are again, falling into that nasty Google trap.
This revenue was mostly generated by advertisements placed at the beginning of video clips other people had produced and uploaded. So YouTube has the moral and legal obligation to come to terms with the collecting societies. To date, YouTube has failed to do so in many countries. In fact, YouTube IS exploiting authors to generate money. And in this case the laws cuts in. Und das ist gut so.
The moment you go public it all changes, and licensing is obligatory. Besides of this: There is almost no public display, where — taking a deeper look — no money making is involved. Nothing on the internet is truly for free. Thus any use of works in this contexts must be consequently licensed, otherwise an inacceptable asymmetry between creators and usurpators is created.
Dear Christopher, You allege that Mrs Reda is fighting for strengthening the position of authors. This must be a totally innovative way of reasoning by the Pirates. Mrs Reda, how ethical you think is, using your presence in the European Parliament in order to promote Piracy??????? We will not legalize Piracy!!!!! Give us the right to create! Do not deprive us from our earnings. Respect our property! Sie haben um unsere Meinungen gebeten. Zu finden sind sie jedenfalls nirgends.
Wir fordern von Ihnen Transparenz. Do the plans of the collecting societies really reflect the interests of all artists? Sehr interessant. Sie verwenden aber beide Begriffe de facto synonym. Balance geht anders. Sie vertun sich. Sie agieren nicht am Markt. Was sie auch nicht sind: Teil der Musikindustrie. Vertrieb allerdings leisten die VGs ganz sicher nicht.
Oder eben nicht. Nein, keineswegs. Meine Kollegen und mich treiben Zukunftssorgen um, die nichts mit Besitzstandswahrung zu tun haben, denn als Kulturschaffende sind wir vertraut mit Kulturwandel, der oft einhergeht mit technologischem und wirtschaftlichem Wandel. Die heutige Situation ist jedoch neu und anders. Ganz offensichtlich haben wir es daher mit strukturellen Problemen zu tun.
Reflexion, Innovation, Verhandlung von Werten — all das basiert auf einer funktionierenden Kultur und ihren Protagonisten. Die national geltenden Rechte fassen nun die jeweils unterschiedlichen Werte, Haltungen, Praktiken in Regelwerke, die sich wiederum auch unterscheiden — so wie sich die Kulturen unterscheiden. Ist das wirklich eine ernstgemeinte Frage? Wenn die Leute sowas machen wollen, dann soll sie es doch machen. Es verwerten ohne mich zu beteiligen. Was soll daran falsch sein? Vor allem anderen: Unser Urheberrecht muss als Recht der Urheber fortgeschrieben werden.
Es ist kein Verbraucherrecht und kann auch dem Sinn nach keines sein. Niemand verlangt, dass Sie unkritisch sind; das sind wir als Wahrnehmungsberechtigte auch nicht. Komponist Vorsitzender mediamusic e.
What you aim to pursue is some kind of modern slavery, solely serving the purpose to maximise the profits of us-american internet companies. So, do reconsider your purpose in life. Or have you really become a politician just to support Google? There are already plenty of handsomely paid lobbyists. We are a diverse lot, but in our hearts and minds are workers rights and fair salaries. We are against ideas that put people at risk of not being able to live from their jobs — even if these ideas may sound futuristic or grand.
Have you read the explanations of her report? There is certainly nothing in there that even comes close to your fears; in fact Julia is fighting to strengthen the position of authors in the copyright system. Julia Reda is a member of the Pirate Party and therefore promotes piracy. Leave us creators alone! Try, instead, to improve the practices of the multinationals who have been profiting for a long time to the detriment of all of us. Thanks for your comment. Deal Julia! O does NOT make you lose control over your creation.
So for example : if a documentarist asks for my music , it is on my own decision if i will give the music. Nobody forces me to give or not give the music, so there is no way that my creation can be used against my vision. O will collect my royalties and protect my intellectuel property thats all. Now if an artist is signed with a record company that is not working out for him is another topic. Nothing has to change but some additions have to be done, for example give the P. Does youtube pays royalties? And if no why? But where do you think the best art will be?
Also regarding paragraph 3, you are talking in general…. But why dont you tell what excactly you are intending to do about this?? Entsprechend neugierig habe ich die Zusammenfassung Ihres Reports studiert. Sehen Sie es mir bitte nach, aber ich finde ich mich als Urheber dort nicht wieder. Sollten wir Steuern abschaffen? Mit Verlaub, das ist Unsinn. Und welche Rechte hielten die dann inne?
Oder geht es Ihnen hier einmal mehr um das sagenumwobene Remixing? Finden Sie es unzumutbar, dass ich als Urheber eines Werks gefragt werde, bevor es in einen anderen Zusammenhang gestellt wird? Along with the Internet as a zero-cost global publishing medium, this phenomenon has brought about a broad creative revolution, enabling a wealth of emerging practices in which new works are created by transforming existing ones.
Driving Impact: Wertschöpfung in der Welt von morgen (German Edition) - Kindle edition by Christian A. Rast, Sven T.; Rast Marlinghaus. Download it once and. Driving Impact: Wertschöpfung in der Welt von morgen (German Edition). by Christian A. Rast and Sven T.; Rast Marlinghaus | Sep 11, Kindle · $$
Das ist, mit Verlaub, grober Unfug. Videos neu vertonen konnte man bereits in den Siebzigern des letzten Jahrhunderts, ebenso aus bestehenden Mehrspuraufnahmen etwas Neues schaffen. Warum eigentlich? Ganz ohne schlechtes Gewissen. Und das omnipotente Smartphone war sehr wahrscheinlich auch umsonst. Vielmehr geht es in einem fort um Ausnahmen und Liberalisierung des Marktes. Das kann und will ich nicht akzeptieren.
I have carefully read your opinions and — since you ask for EU creators to express their opinions to you — allow me to share my thoughts with you… First of all, I am forced to point out that the fact that you ask creators to send you an email and be kept anonymous to the public is completely wrong, suspicious and provocative. If the ones who will eventually agree with you express themselves in public like the rest of us who disagree , it will make your point of view really stronger. A pirate is defined as 1 One who commits or practices piracy at sea, 2 One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization and 3 One who illegally intercepts or uses radio or television signals, especially one who operates an illegal television or radio station.
Which of the three definitions represents you the most? Do you even have Piratebay on your bookmarks list? No doubt…. Have you ever thought of the fact that noone forces any creator to join a collecting society? Have you ever checked how many creators are being protected each and every day by those collecting societies from people who want to use their intellectual work for free?
Have you ever cared about how many families in the European Union and around the world depend on intellectual rights to live a decent life? Yes, dear! Since noone forced them to sign a contract with the collecting societies! Believe me…. Things are not the same for a creator in Greece and a creator in the United Kingdom. Trying to globalize everthing is not always the best idea. Certainly not in the case of intellectual property. If it is already a very hard work for a local national collecting society to handle the cases of dozens of thousands of its members, imagine how chaotic it would be to have one — Europa controlled — collecting society.
A single European market is — except from utopic — an idea that has been proven in many cases to be non-functional and dangerous. As a creator I want my work to be protected and secured by people who belong to the same market with me. I need the organization that represents me and my intellectual rights to be as close to me as possible.
Same goes for any creator in any country, Julia. Have no doubts about it. A centralized organization controlled by European technocrats is not what a creator needs! Not robots! Creators want a close relation to the people who represent them. Not any employee of the European Community who will be just a receiver of my emails!
Anyone who wants to use or play my music is obliged to ask for my authorization. I really cannot understand how people like you demand that OUR own creations should be given to anyone to change them? Would you ever give your own child to a stranger to change the way it talks, the way it thinks, the way it communicates, the way YOU raised it to be???????
Users want broad access to information and an end to the criminalization of their everyday behaviour. Creators often find themselves caught in the middle. There are creators who are professionals and create for a living. These creators are proud members of their respective collecting societies and need their work to be protected.
There are also creators who are amateurs, who have no access to the markets and create for them, their girlfriends and their parents to be proud of them. You are not allowed to make the mistake of mixing those two different categories! When you refer to laws, collecting societies, intellectual rights, EU rules, legislations, copyrights etc.
For example, a person who writes lyrics and has never published his work, has never participated in a CD, has never been a part of the musical industry in any way, does not give a damn about laws, rules, societies, rights and the rest! Thus, asking for the opinion of creators I believe you should make clear that you are referring to professional creators. The ones who invest years of their lives for musical studies. The ones who invest money on producing and distributing their works.
The ones who NEED to be members of national collecting societies! The ones who cannot afford to share their creations without securing them first! Cause creators need to be paid for their work to live. Cause creators cannot allow others to alter or steal their creations….
What concrete problems do you as a creator face in your everyday work under the current copyright regime? Rest assured that we creators have our collecting societies to discuss all these matters with! There is no need for European creators to discuss their concerns with Pirates of the EU Parliament or anyone else! To sum up. It is my national collecting society AEPI. Because AEPI has been protecting Greek creators for years with loyalty, professionalism and — above all — in an effective way.
There is absolutely no need for replacing the society that cares about me and my work. And whatever I need to discuss concerning my creations or my rights as a creator, I do it with the appropriate departments of AEPI. No need for Pirates to interfer with my work.
Simple as that…. Do not shoot at the creators and the artists! We demand not to reduce, but to strengthen the rights of creators to authorize and be remunerated for any use of our works online. The artists are already remunerated with the crumbs falling from the tables of those who live rich taking advantage economically the creations of the artists. An artist exists for as long as he owns exclusively the rights of his creations. Could you be more specific which of the proposed measures you take issue with? Schon in dieser Frage klingt an, was sich wie ein Roter Faden durch alle Ihre Fragen, aber auch durch die altbekannten Piraten-Positionen zieht: absolute Ignoranz in Bezug auf den Prozess, in dem Urheber ihre medialen Werke heute realisieren.
Eines gibt es ohne das andere nicht. Fragen Sie doch einfach mal die Beteiligten. Da bin ich leidenschaftslos, liebe Frau Reda. Aber Sie und ich sollten zumindest zur Kenntnis nehmen, dass die Finanzierung und Refinanzierung z. Das kann nicht im Interesse der Urheber sein. Mir nicht. Ohne dass der Urheber etwas davon hat — wenn z.
Wir sprechen als Liedermacher ueber 30 Jahre, motiviert durch Logik und also Gefuehl , anstatt technokratischen Analysen.. In your report you indicate a few times that you made sure you have spoken to all parties that are affected by the report. One would think, it makes sense to ask, because in the report you only refer to single creators. Therefore you refer to experiences and opinions of single persons that are not even representative for a small group of stakeholders.
So yes, it makes sense to actively ask in public. And obviously you already got some very profound answers in the comments of this site and on your facebook page. But allow me to point out some questions raised through the procedure itself and your introductory statement:. Did you speak with professional creators associations beforehand? So have you offered that help beforehand? Sometimes you refer to creators, sometimes to artists. Sometimes you refer to the music industry, sometimes to E-books, sometimes to photography, sometimes to private amateur creation.
Unfortunately you never explain why or how you come to this conclusion. A detailed analyze of the published list shows, that just a fractional amount of your time was used by collecting societies or groups associated to them you call them cmos. So at least in your own report one can find no proof at all for your statement. So the question is: Is this statement based on facts or on personal belief some might call it ideological?
The questions you are asking in your introductory statement were lengthy and eleborately answered in some of the former comments. But please allow me to stress out one simple thing, which is expicitely true for the music business but might at least in parts as well be true for other branches. A very large part of the professionally created and crafted works are not used and exploited by the authors themselves. They are written for someone else be it another artist or a company and most of the times for a specific use. At the beginning of their public lives no one can predict, what will happen to them.
No one can predict, how much those works will be used in a commercial environment, how successful they will be in terms of money or just in terms of public interest. No one can predict if they will rise like a star and reach their audience or if they will suffer their commercial life somewhere in a dark chamber for whatever reason. You care about content. You are asking: What is important to you?
Hello Andreas, thanks for your comments. Of course! Julia is of course aware that several groups, among them the authors society PRS for music , made it easier for people to respond to the consultations after the EU neglected to provide an online form. It is interesting that you see the report as an attack on cultural heritage, whereas cultural heritage institutions like the library association EBLIDA support it. Clay…you guys live somewhere up there in your heads. But keep on talking. It is your job after all.
If you are ever interested in reality, shut up first! Not about what is the topic here. Did I ever mention the Pirate Party? It was about questions that came to me while reading the report of a member of the EU-parliament. Some of those questions are answered through your reply, most of them are not.
We all know that and believe me, Julia and her team are not the only ones who know this and try to find solutions. So here are some opinions. If she wants to listen, fine. Instead you insinuate that my post is driven by the anti-pirates-reflex. Do I see the report as an attack on cultural heritage? I just stated the fact, that one might see a responsibility for first world countries to protect cultural heritage and that this was not clearly addressed in the report.
In addition to that the influence of global players on the markets and on that cultural heritage was not discussed either. Do we really need a copyright consultation to find out that there are stakeholders and conflicts of interests inside entities like collecting societies, some of them hosting You write Julia is caring very much about artists btw I was talking about authors , but she also cares about the users.
I found an interesting article on that. I think we could at least agree in saying, they are not supporters of the current copyright system in the EU. The big question — and neither you nor Julia provide an answer to that: Why? Why do those interests need to be balanced? So she is asking for participation on her website: What is important to you? Which global players are you specifically concerned with? Without the possibility to enforce rights, they are not worth the paper they are written on.
But ok. You ask me to specify my concerns on the monopoly in the field of search engines? You ask me to specify my concerns about the monopoly in the field of E-Commerce? You ask me to draw a comparison between Universal Music and YouTube? I thought Julia is an the expert on this field. And according to her website she believes in technology as the moving force of society. I deeply respect politicians who have the courage to clearly state their beliefs in public unless they are inhuman, anticonstitutional etc. This applies to Julia as well. But if she states her beliefs as clearly as she does she must be aware that all of her actions are seen in the bright light of her beliefs.
She believes in progress through technology. Besides the fact that you said Julia would see those actions as a reasonable way of making participation easier see our discussion above about the handling of the consultation through PRS and Amelia Andersdottir — it would be great if you would provide any links or evidence for that statement. Have you ever create an artistic work? Hello Alberto, thanks for your comments. It is a work you know.. It is a work for me to live with dignity producing culture.. Please let me live!!!! Take your hands of my human rights!!!
Hello Lina, thanks for your comment. If her proposals are indeed in favor for us creators, why do you think they have caused such a huge reaction by creators against these proposals? Do all creators have a misinformation problem? Creators are already disadvantaged in many ways with very few actually getting rich in the current system , it is understandable that they fight to defend their position when they are told of a supposed threat.
Mire Vd. Yo te doy dos canciones y tu me das un kilo de filete de ternera. Tu me das una novela y yo te llevo gratis en mi taxi un par de meses…. Pero, mira por donde, lo quieren gratis. Si Vd. Y Vds. Seria una propuesta justa. No cree? Reynaldo Leon. Como autora teatral considero alucinante y abusiva tu propuesta, posiblemente basada en un desconocimiento de nuestra realidad. En muchos casos, se trata de simples pateras que aspiran tenazmente a llegar a las costas de una supervivencia digna. I have read through a lot of comments here, and there are a lot of misconceptions about copyright, human rights, consumers and what the Pirate Party stands for amongst other things.
Human Rights. Content creators and specially the Media industry lobby often spread the notion that getting paid is a human right. It is not. Creators do however have the right to ASK to get paid for their work. The Media industry works for the Media industry, and that is all well and good. With the emergence of a new type of distribution, as seen especially in the digital market, many distributors of content is simply not needed.
Wrong, at least in the sense that they lose sales. Most independently verified empirical evidence points to the contrary. Piracy is at an all-time high, and so is the amount of money the media industry earns. What the media industry DO lose money on, is the fight against progress and the natural evolution of the free market in light of new technologies and business models when they pay hard earned money towards fighting piracy.
Also Wrong. The media industries are fighting for their own rights. In many if not most contracts that creators like authors and musicians agree to and sign, they effectively sell the rights to their own creations to the companies. This is not how it should be. The creator of a work should always own their own work, at least for a long enough time to be able to make an impact on the market, and also to be able to negotiate with other distributors and marketing companies. Creators are of course free to sign any contracts they so desire, but if the media industry all work by the same old principles, it will not be possible to change the conditions for creators for the better.
Wrong again. Stealing a car is stealing. Stealing a book is stealing. Buying wood and tools to make a chair that looks like IKEAs chair for personal use is not and will never be stealing. Buying a USB stick, pay for internet connections, buying computers and then copying a movie from a friend is not and will never be stealing. The Media Lobby will make you believe that copying ideas, content and digital media is stealing, but this is simply not true.
The original work is still in the hands of the owner. If you are a creator, then I urge you to get independent information about these issues and what the Pirate Party movement stands for, both in your own country and internationally.
Human rights. Freedom of speech. Freedom of information, knowledge and culture. Freedom to take part in the development of society as a whole. Freedom of sexual expression. Religious freedom. The right to be anonymous. The abolishment of mass surveillance. The promotion of education, and much, much more. If yes, what kind of? Or do you just hijack this site for announcing Pirate Party promotion phrases?
This estimate may be conservative if the actual losses to piracy are greater than those suggested by our triple difference estimate or if returns in the US box office are also reduced by piracy.
Our findings are potentially important to policymakers choosing policies to combat piracy. These laws are highly controversial, and similar laws have been considered in the US and England. As a first step, policy makers need to know whether piracy is depressing sales, and our results suggest that piracy depresses international box office.
I know the UN report. Which is a shame. Not a contract, nor a law. Nice quotes, by the way. I also support the freedom on the Internet, but your freedom should not come at the cost of my own freedom, including my rights based on intellectual property. Access to cultural and technical resources should be regulated in such way that it does not usurp the copyright in any way.
Regarding the eventual free sharing of music-works, a decision about it can be made solely by the author. I am convinced that piracy is not a solution to this problem, but a compromise that will permanently define fair relationship between authors and users of their works in this new digital world. Finally, I feel the need to emphasize that the authors and copyright societies are continually making new innovations that are transforming the world and contributing to the overall development. I cannot answer any question posed to Julia Reda or her team, nor her branch of the Pirate Party, nor can I speak on their behalf in regards to their official position on any question.
As you well know, political groups in different countries has their own platforms. Laws and political structures vary between borders and by necessity different groups need to focus on different political topics. It would surprise me greatly however if our view would differ in any major way on most topics relating to the common principles the Pirate movement is based on.
Would you mind to elaborate what businesses you have in mind when you are using that expression? You say: […] the fight against progress and the natural evolution of the free market in light of new technologies and business models when they pay hard earned money towards fighting piracy. That takes no effort at all, just one or two mouse clicks — to which Pirates perhaps already refer as craftsmanship.
If your analogy was a proper one, copying a piece music of music would include, for example, to gather a bunch of able musicians, put them into a recording studio and have them rerecord the piece. Or the other way round: We needed a device to copy furniture in a fraction of a second. The big mistake in your story is that you mix up intellectual property with tangible goods. As before you — deliberately? Who do you consider to be the owner of what work? Do you acknowledge the right, for example, of a film company or its distributors to charge money from cinemas for playing their movies?
And stealing a DVD from the shop is also not stealing, because the original work is still in the hands of the owner? One last word: Nobody denies the right of copying for private use. Most pirated works, however, are distributed through a worldwide net of commercial download services. These folks mostly neither pay the rightholders, artists, creators nor authors. In short: They are thieves. Also called pirates if seabound. You are a spokesman for the Swedish Pirate Party and should have all the means to persuade us of your good intentions towards authors. And by the way, here would be the ideal place.
As for your first point, sure. Its not a great leap of faith after all. More people than ever consume their products, and more sales than ever are being made. All over the world, companies are expanding and more consumers are made avaliable through new infrastructure. That is regulated by the market that in turn, very simplified, is governed by supply and demand. Some markets earns more than ever, and some decline, but overall the business is booming, with or without Pirates. No, not entirely. The market has a sort of natural evolution yes.
The companies that do not adapt in time to changes on the market lose money and risk getting outperformed and outcompeted by rivals, and others that do adapt their business models to the current affair of the market survives and outlive the more static business models.
You thinking my narrative is ridiculous is your prerogative to be sure, I have nothing against that. Everyone is free to have their opinion and to express it. I take no offense. What constitutes work and its worth does not always equal how long it takes to make, nor how expensive it is to make, no. Worth is determined by what the customer is prepared to pay. And work is defined by the person who does it. The artist has put work into it. If someone is prepared to buy it, then that work it worth what he can get no matter what you think of it. Wiesbaden SpingerGabler , S. Balderjahn, I.
AMS Review — Journal of Brand Management, 20 8 : Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 17 4 : - Gallen, No. Gallen, 30 6 : 74 - In: Wiedmann, K. A Challenge for Theory and Practice. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden , pp. Klarmann, Ch. Behrens, St. Literature Review. In: Santos, C. Ganassali, St. Behrens, S. Buerke, A.
Donvito, R. I Will Be Attached to You. Klarmann, C. A Three-Dimensional Measurement Approach. Potenziale, Strategien und Instrumente. Forum Dienstleistungsmanagement. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden , S. A Cross-Cultural Consumer Perspective. Psychology and Marketing. Gallen, 29 1 : Managing the Effect on Brand Strength. In: Diamantopoulos, A. Wuestefeld, T. In: Seung Hee Lee Ed. In: McArthur, D. In: Bharadwaj, S. Petersburg, Fl, , pp.
In: Bruhn, M. In: Walsh, G. Erfahrungen, Konzepte und Handlungsperspektiven. Wiedmann K. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. Journal of Business Research. Andreani, J. A Typology of German Wine Consumers. Delivering Value to Consumers in Turbulent Times. In: Noble, St. Towards a better understanding of customer product evaluations. Kilian, Th. Oelsnitz, D. Gabler-Verlag, Wiesbaden , S. Skizzen zu einem markenwert-zentrierten Ansatz und empirische Hinweise zu dessen erfolgreicher Umsetzung, in: Enke, M.
Grundlagen — Besonderheiten — Erfahrungen, 2. Datensicherheit als zentraler Baustein der Energienetze, in: Energiewirtschaft, ew, Jg. Journal of Marketing Trends, Vol. Journal of Global Business Advancement, Vol. In: Brady, Michael K. May, In: Luxton, S. Aiello, G. Journal of Brand Management, Vol. Venghaus, S. Aldas-Manzano, J. Juni Wer managen will, muss vorher genau messen! Wiedmann, K-P. Aber dabei nicht den Kunden vergessen. Leroy Robinson, Jr. Journal of General Management, Vol.
Ganassali, S. Walsh, G. B-H Elsevier , pp. Ford , Vol. Geburtstag von Prof. Hans H. Bauer, 1. Klee, A. KPMG International.
Hosted by London Business School. Benavent, Ch. Wiedmann, K-P; Hennigs, N. Chuan Min, D. October Hinck, W. Kostenfalle oder Effizienzquelle, 2. Abstract in: Bernhardt, K. Abel, B. Silberer, Wiesbaden , S. Kostenfalle oder Effizienzquelle? Buxel, H. Greilich, J. Mitchell, V. Barbara E.