Copyright and Piracy Psychology

At that time, when SOPs, PIPs and other animals stir up news feeds, articles are actively written on the size of the damage received and lost profits, on court decisions, protest actions and others like them, on content protection technologies and on the free exchange of the same content, I I want to write about the motivation of copywriters and pirates.

Not because I want to understand this at all, but because as long as some people have the motivation to prohibit the free flow of information and other people have the motivation, this senseless and merciless war with victims and destruction will be free to spread this information (I hope only information structures).

I'll start with a simple copywriter - a person who prohibits the free copying (distribution) of their content. Very often he is not even the author of the content. The author is often a man of a thin internal organization and he does not want to enter into conflict with his audience, and gives this question to the mercy of that same copywriter. A copywriter, apart from paying the author of his fee, usually invests his money and time in additional services for distributing content on a fee basis.

I do not want to use the word product in relation to the subject of contention, since we are talking about the non-material, and the information component. What is important here is that when someone copies the content, the copywriter, the copywriter or the author have no direct damage due to this action. Those. if they had never found out about this, then this fact in no way disturbed them. But they usually find out about this and usually indirectly, when the nature of this action becomes very widespread.
')
So, what motivates a copywriter to forbid others to distribute content? The answer is obvious - profits not received from the sale of content. If it is possible to get content for free, then very few people will pay for it. Here there is an analogy with a material product. If you can steal the bread in the store, then you will not buy it and the store will not profit from it. But, as the classic joke goes, there are nuances. In the case of bread, the store does not melt bread - there is direct damage. In the case of content, it remains with the copywriter.

The analogy with the theft of material value looks similar, but this is not fully. Information has one fundamental property that distinguishes it from material objects. This is the property of inalienability during transmission. I will not write about this much, but this is a fundamental property. It is based on almost all reasonable and unsubstantiated objections of opponents of copyright.

So, a copywriter has invested money and wants to make a profit (really insolent? :). But something prevented him ... This is something - the desire of the other side to get the content cheaper, more free.

A little bit about the other side, about the consumer - the person who wants to receive content (that is, he recognizes that this content is of some value to him), but at the same time the fish is looking for where it is deeper, and the person is where it is cheaper. It would seem that everything is simple and the consumer of content is a cynical besperelschik, who in view had as much as he tried and how much blood, sweat and money he invested in creating this content and bringing it to him. But it's not quite like that. The consumer is not all like that. Most of it has some internal limiters-norms, because they buy bread in the store, but not steal it.

So what is so special that consumers buy bread and try to get content for free? I see that this is again the most fundamental property of information, that it is not alienated during transmission. Those. The author and copywriter have no direct costs associated with the creation of each copy of the content. Free distribution of content does not directly damage the copywriter, it means it is not theft, it means that the consumer’s behavior permitted by its own internal framework (moral principles). This is where a conflict arises.

A copywriter wants to receive money for a copy, and believes that he has a right to it (freedom protected by society), because without it this copy cannot be created, and the consumer does not want to pay money for a copy, and believes that he has a right to it, because that making this copy for a copywriter is worth nothing.

So far, I have not said anything new. But as long as this conflict exists, no SOPs, PIPs and other DRM monsters will stop it. The essence of man is such that if he believes that he has the right, and not a trembling creature, he will not stop before any SOPs.

How do I see the way out? Yes, many of them, there are many very reasonable, mainly based on the care of the category "fee per copy." It would be trite if I said that one of them is a panacea. But the war will go on until both parties recognize the contradictory understanding of each other’s rights, do not recognize the interests of the other side, and do not change their attitude to the content as a tangible product.

For now - the armor is strong and our tanks are fast ...

UPD: The discussion went back to where I was trying to pull it out. The expected result, given that in brilliant eloquence I have never been caught. I am sorry that the article was taken as such in support of supporters of the free flow of information.

I advocate that the issue of payment for the transfer of content was decided solely by two parties: the creator of the content (its representatives) and the content consumers (their representatives). Without appeals to third parties: the state, society, religion, otherworldly forces, etc. I believe that both the creator and the consumer are sufficiently adequate to find a solution to the problem, but historically established mediation in this conflict between the state, commercial structures, and other "well-wishers" leads to a constant arms race and incitement to hatred on this basis.