A look at the problem of illegal content distribution
The recent history of blocking the site EX.UA has caused a wave of discussion in the country related to copyright compliance, the fight against piracy, and ways of legal distribution of digital content. Even in popular political talk shows, this topic came to one of the first places.
I listened to these discussions and understood that this issue will not be resolved either now or in the near future. Everyone has a legitimate interest, but all parties are trying to find a solution in the existing market system, and no one seems to see that digital content does not fit into the current framework of existing relationships. I offer my view on the problems that prevent the legalization of the distribution of digital content.
The whole system is built on the fact that one side has a need for something, and the other side is ready to satisfy this need. In market conditions, a corresponding price is set that satisfies both parties. There is a fisherman who fishes, and there are people who want to eat this fish. They negotiate with the fisherman - and buy fish from him. A fisherman is a breadwinner, he knows how to get what the consumer needs, and efforts need to be made to this, resources must be spent on this.
However, imagine for a second that people would have some wonderful tool with which they could without any cost get any unlimited amount of the same fish from any single fish. It would be enough then to buy only one fish from a fisherman - and all of humanity would be forever provided with its reserves. Miracle! But this is exactly what we are seeing in the situation with the distribution of digital content. Modern digital technologies allowed to make a real miracle in the field of information resources distribution. It seems like a miracle - it is always good, but let's look at the problems with a fish example.
')
Suppose we can clone a fish without any cost, but nothing happened with other products. And then what comes out? Will someone buy fish from a fisherman? Of course not! Will then the fisherman catch fish? Not. He, after all, needs to somehow make a living. And people also have a problem: endlessly, no one wants the same fish, they say that you can still catch something more tasty ... Make the fisherman go to many months to search for a new fish? And who exactly will he pay for this one new copy? After all, an expensive fish will come out. Pay a fisherman for each cloned copy? But why? The neighbor already has a new fish, we both have cloning machines ... Why would anyone pay anything else? And actually for what? And then why should we wonder if we need to pay for everything, as before? What happens then? There is a miracle machine, and it is impossible to use plenty of its capabilities?
Personally, I absolutely do not see a way out of the current situation in the existing market methods. It is impossible to reduce the author and the consumer without third-party intervention. It is necessary to create some kind of artificial new system that would simultaneously provide income to the authors of the works, and would be understandable and reasonable for the end user. So far I only see that consumers are trying to instill, that they are simply obliged to pay, because it is moral. And that's all. Personally, it causes me to be completely rejected.
If you buy an e-book or movie, or an audio recording in an online store, then a whole cloud of completely unnecessary intermediaries earns from it. They really are not needed. Any author can distribute his works through the network himself, and only one centralized catalog is needed from intermediaries.
Also the problem is in the price itself. The factor of having the possibility of practically costless cloning of any work - a modern miracle - makes existing prices completely inadequate. There are many enthusiasts on the network who provide access to simply huge repositories of content - read, do not re-read, watch not reconsider. The same student must run through a whole mountain of literature to complete a term paper or a thesis. And why should a person, who wants to find a new direction of fiction, limit himself? How can people restrict people's access to these endless possibilities if it does not require absolutely any resources? The price of electronic works must be penny, only then it will be possible to pay for them, and this will not limit the freedom of access to information.
What, then, to pay the authors? Redistribute resources, organize special funds, pay authors according to their popularity ... People are willing to pay for access to information, but it should be understood that the volumes of this very information that they pass through themselves have long exceeded those units of works that they can afford to buy . The authorities should understand that without creating a new system, the content market cannot be legalized.
I listened to these discussions and understood that this issue will not be resolved either now or in the near future. Everyone has a legitimate interest, but all parties are trying to find a solution in the existing market system, and no one seems to see that digital content does not fit into the current framework of existing relationships. I offer my view on the problems that prevent the legalization of the distribution of digital content.
Parable about fish
The whole system is built on the fact that one side has a need for something, and the other side is ready to satisfy this need. In market conditions, a corresponding price is set that satisfies both parties. There is a fisherman who fishes, and there are people who want to eat this fish. They negotiate with the fisherman - and buy fish from him. A fisherman is a breadwinner, he knows how to get what the consumer needs, and efforts need to be made to this, resources must be spent on this.
However, imagine for a second that people would have some wonderful tool with which they could without any cost get any unlimited amount of the same fish from any single fish. It would be enough then to buy only one fish from a fisherman - and all of humanity would be forever provided with its reserves. Miracle! But this is exactly what we are seeing in the situation with the distribution of digital content. Modern digital technologies allowed to make a real miracle in the field of information resources distribution. It seems like a miracle - it is always good, but let's look at the problems with a fish example.
')
Suppose we can clone a fish without any cost, but nothing happened with other products. And then what comes out? Will someone buy fish from a fisherman? Of course not! Will then the fisherman catch fish? Not. He, after all, needs to somehow make a living. And people also have a problem: endlessly, no one wants the same fish, they say that you can still catch something more tasty ... Make the fisherman go to many months to search for a new fish? And who exactly will he pay for this one new copy? After all, an expensive fish will come out. Pay a fisherman for each cloned copy? But why? The neighbor already has a new fish, we both have cloning machines ... Why would anyone pay anything else? And actually for what? And then why should we wonder if we need to pay for everything, as before? What happens then? There is a miracle machine, and it is impossible to use plenty of its capabilities?
Back to reality
Personally, I absolutely do not see a way out of the current situation in the existing market methods. It is impossible to reduce the author and the consumer without third-party intervention. It is necessary to create some kind of artificial new system that would simultaneously provide income to the authors of the works, and would be understandable and reasonable for the end user. So far I only see that consumers are trying to instill, that they are simply obliged to pay, because it is moral. And that's all. Personally, it causes me to be completely rejected.
If you buy an e-book or movie, or an audio recording in an online store, then a whole cloud of completely unnecessary intermediaries earns from it. They really are not needed. Any author can distribute his works through the network himself, and only one centralized catalog is needed from intermediaries.
Also the problem is in the price itself. The factor of having the possibility of practically costless cloning of any work - a modern miracle - makes existing prices completely inadequate. There are many enthusiasts on the network who provide access to simply huge repositories of content - read, do not re-read, watch not reconsider. The same student must run through a whole mountain of literature to complete a term paper or a thesis. And why should a person, who wants to find a new direction of fiction, limit himself? How can people restrict people's access to these endless possibilities if it does not require absolutely any resources? The price of electronic works must be penny, only then it will be possible to pay for them, and this will not limit the freedom of access to information.
What, then, to pay the authors? Redistribute resources, organize special funds, pay authors according to their popularity ... People are willing to pay for access to information, but it should be understood that the volumes of this very information that they pass through themselves have long exceeded those units of works that they can afford to buy . The authorities should understand that without creating a new system, the content market cannot be legalized.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/137692/
All Articles