Taxing Questions: Are Compulsory Licenses a Solution to the P2P Debate?
Subject:   Yes, but only if they are Parametric Licenses
Date:   2003-10-29 11:58:31
From:   anonymous2
Yes, compulsory licenses can work. But only if they are parametric, and let providers "opt in" to wider distribution in return for lesser rights.

After all, the user is paying for access to the net. Net access that permits P2P file sharing should cost more, and people should pay for that - after all it loads the network down very heavily.

Parametric licenses like GNU FDL and Creative Commons are a good answer. But they need more work. For instance, I would be very pleased to give away all rights to anything I write as non-fiction, IF AND ONLY IF I KNOW THAT ENTITIES THAT PROFIT FROM IT PASS AN ETHICAL INVESTING SCREEN AND MORAL PURCHASING SCREEN. I want them to be "Green" in some sense, or they can't have my work. I suspect a vast number of people would contribute willingly with this kind of condition.

This is what Parametric Licenses have to do - they have to drop the stupid/wrong/evil Free Software assumption that somehow all information is good in all hands. We know that's not true of say "better" biological warfare DNA sequences - so let's adapt now, and bar military or police use of what we write, bar deforesters and over fishers from using it. For that matter, debt holders.

The simplest way to do this? If you both profit from "Green Writing", and hold shares in any org doing resource extraction and reducing habitat, OR hold government or corporate debt, you are in violation. A system to figure this out isn't hard to build, given the will. The consequences of exploiting both Green writing and the planet it is written for, would be too severe to imagine.

Think about it. Save the ultimate artist's work, the whole Earth. Put Green Paramters in Licenses.

You'll be amazed what is suddenly free to use... See for an example - and for more.