Copyright in two axioms
I wanted to write a comment to the latest topic about copyright issues, but it turned out very long.
I will say straight away that I do not defend either those who are called here “copiersta” or their opponents. I was always amazed by the controversy surrounding this issue. Arguments are all sorts of. People come up with the most incredible examples, just to prove their point of view ...
I decided to algorithmize a little my understanding of this issue.
Axiom 1. There is an object and its properties that allow to classify this object as a “copyright object”.
Axiom 2. The right to dispose of the object of copyright belongs to its creator (if there is no additional contract governing this issue).
This means that in this axiom the free distribution of a copyright object is possible only with the consent of the author. The author has the ability to do anything with him. It can close the freshly-fledged film in the safe. Can show to invited guests at home for huge money. He can put it on the network and say: “Download the good health!” - this is only his decision. If you are not satisfied with the terms of use proposed by the author, then you have no right to use his product. Everything! Everything else is speculation on the subject.
')
The author of the article, which I refer to at the beginning, like many commentators, overlooks one simple thing. How to manage your product - the decision of the author only. You can offer thousands of promising ways to monetize content that would suit everyone. We can say that this is the destruction of culture and in general is immoral and unfair ... This is all not important. According to the second axiom.
I understand perfectly well that we, unfortunately (or fortunately?), Do not live in a perfect world. There are many other factors that affect what is happening, but I see the situation that way. Do not like the conditions - do not buy! And if not bought, do not steal!
All the good examples cited by opponents of “copywriting” belong to axiom 1. For example, I really find it difficult to answer when a song ceases to be the property of the author. With his death? After 10 years? After 35? And maybe in 15 and a half?
The same applies to the problem of content distribution. It often happens that the user wants to buy a license, but does not have this option.
One thought gives me no peace.
Imagine that there is not a single person in society who uses illegal software. In Russia, 90% of the private market will instantly occupy ubuntu and open office. Although, in my opinion, the situation is improving, but for the majority the license is still a little expensive. These people will come to work and experience the inconvenience of having to work under a different system. Gradually, the industry will move to open source. Microsoft will go bankrupt and fall apart, or consider one of the wise monetization proposals that have been repeatedly voiced here.
Of course, this is another far-fetched example. I wanted to convey only that the market is quite self -regulating . I assure you - as soon as you put a movie on a torrent and open donate will be more profitable than selling it on dvd - everyone will do so.
In the meantime, putting a movie on a torrent, you are a pirate. And it is against the law. How not to call it. Perhaps, if everyone “plays by the rules,” it turns out that these are bad rules, and axioms will change. And it may turn out that the problem is not in the system ...
I will say straight away that I do not defend either those who are called here “copiersta” or their opponents. I was always amazed by the controversy surrounding this issue. Arguments are all sorts of. People come up with the most incredible examples, just to prove their point of view ...
I decided to algorithmize a little my understanding of this issue.
Axiom 1. There is an object and its properties that allow to classify this object as a “copyright object”.
Axiom 2. The right to dispose of the object of copyright belongs to its creator (if there is no additional contract governing this issue).
This means that in this axiom the free distribution of a copyright object is possible only with the consent of the author. The author has the ability to do anything with him. It can close the freshly-fledged film in the safe. Can show to invited guests at home for huge money. He can put it on the network and say: “Download the good health!” - this is only his decision. If you are not satisfied with the terms of use proposed by the author, then you have no right to use his product. Everything! Everything else is speculation on the subject.
')
The author of the article, which I refer to at the beginning, like many commentators, overlooks one simple thing. How to manage your product - the decision of the author only. You can offer thousands of promising ways to monetize content that would suit everyone. We can say that this is the destruction of culture and in general is immoral and unfair ... This is all not important. According to the second axiom.
I understand perfectly well that we, unfortunately (or fortunately?), Do not live in a perfect world. There are many other factors that affect what is happening, but I see the situation that way. Do not like the conditions - do not buy! And if not bought, do not steal!
All the good examples cited by opponents of “copywriting” belong to axiom 1. For example, I really find it difficult to answer when a song ceases to be the property of the author. With his death? After 10 years? After 35? And maybe in 15 and a half?
The same applies to the problem of content distribution. It often happens that the user wants to buy a license, but does not have this option.
One thought gives me no peace.
Imagine that there is not a single person in society who uses illegal software. In Russia, 90% of the private market will instantly occupy ubuntu and open office. Although, in my opinion, the situation is improving, but for the majority the license is still a little expensive. These people will come to work and experience the inconvenience of having to work under a different system. Gradually, the industry will move to open source. Microsoft will go bankrupt and fall apart, or consider one of the wise monetization proposals that have been repeatedly voiced here.
Of course, this is another far-fetched example. I wanted to convey only that the market is quite self -regulating . I assure you - as soon as you put a movie on a torrent and open donate will be more profitable than selling it on dvd - everyone will do so.
In the meantime, putting a movie on a torrent, you are a pirate. And it is against the law. How not to call it. Perhaps, if everyone “plays by the rules,” it turns out that these are bad rules, and axioms will change. And it may turn out that the problem is not in the system ...
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/133520/
All Articles