Phoenix principle - will it work on copyrights?
So, the number of articles and discussions, one way or another connected with the tension in the field of copyright protection is off scale. However, it is easy to trace a clear separation of points of view - consumer and "author". I use the word in quotes because it does not fully correspond to the meaning, and I do not mean the point of view of copyright owners.
The position of content consumers is very clear, - to pull the right to free use of media materials. As you know - any buyer wants to buy cheaper, or even for nothing. At the same time, the main motive is the greed of the “evil owners”.
However, no one has yet managed to escape consumption, both to you and me, as well as to employees and owners of companies-owners of rights. Therefore, each of us understands the psychology of consumption from the inside. Few people understand the psychology and motivation of the right holder.
At the same time, it is difficult not to notice that a number of network figures who expressed their protests on SOPA with blackouts are frankly trying to sit on two chairs, because they themselves are very dependent on adhering to the sets of rules that allow them to maintain their position and identity. For example, Facebook will indeed suffer losses in the event of monitoring copyright infringement on the network, however, it will suffer at least as much in the absence of such control. After reviewing the rules of the resources of these companies, it is easy to guess that most of them are based on copyright, and are designed to protect the interests of the company itself, in the use of design, development, and trademarks of the company itself. Protest actions organized by these figures attract users to their side, relying on their position, however, the companies themselves are not fully ready to give up their rights. At the moment, the issue of regulating them, activities, is more acute for them, so they use the sentiments of the masses to protect their interests, but only until the desire for freedom on the part of the masses disagrees with the benefits of these companies. And in some cases in relation to users will position themselves as copyright holders.
')
Let's look objectively - we will take a position from above, becoming aloof from consuming content or making a profit from it.
There is an emerging economic model of media business, and this model is quite firmly seated in the general model of the global economy.
There is also a publicly available technology for copying, storing and sharing information, which also includes media content.
The first model is old and collapses under current conditions. However, abandoning it in favor of the new one is like taking and cutting off a huge chunk of the economy overnight.
In the face of global economic turbulence, such a move can be destructive for the entire economic system. Entering the network and applying the new model overnight is also impossible. Representatives of the old model, in particular copyright holders and authors, are well aware of the need to change the old model to the new one and work on it, as well as introduce new approaches in their work. However, the speed of development of the network and increase its users. as well as the rate of receipt of new content there and its distribution significantly exceeds the rate of emergence of new models of monetization of the results of the authors and other persons directly involved in the preparation of the product. Therefore, the position of rights holders and the measures taken are designed to slow down the process of disintegration just enough so that the occupied sector of the economy could be reborn and not collapse, dragging many adjacent sectors and the economy as a whole.
For some reason, rejecting the old system, defenders of the “free Internet” put down other intermediaries in the new model, falling into the illusion of direct content delivery from the author to the consumer. Direct exchange in the network at a certain scale is an illusion. Already in the present conditions, when the receipt of new copies into the network is not considered legal, although it cannot be regulated, the number of duplicates and, in general, informational garbage in the network exceeds all conceivable limits. Search engines and contextual advertising promise us happiness, but we still have to spend precious time searching for relevant information, often giving up on the result of many hours of shoveling the web.
Jamming foums, comments requires the existence of moderators, rating systems and other innovations that also do not appear from the air.
Believe me, the Internet has received such distribution and development no longer on altruistic ideas and is becoming increasingly commercialized. Consumer ideas for product monetization are utopian or short-sighted. Yes, there are good examples of resources available for alms grateful users, but they are at the moment an exception to the existing rule. If you accept voluntary remuneration for the rule, it will cease to be an exception and attract petitioners. In addition, it is one of the ways to collect funds, long attracted fraudsters for its simplicity. Again, the determining factor in the number of applicants in such a system becomes popularity - and it is not a criterion of quality and value to be produced, in the end, fundraising leaders will be resources / companies that have chosen the most successful marketing strategy and rating methods, SEO specialists and other network craftsmen, not those whose product will be the most ingenious. And so we return again to the issue of advertising and promotion, which is no less acute in the network than in advertising in other media, and is also proposed as one of the ways to monetize copyright work. By the quantity and quality of advertising on the portal, you can determine its information utility - more often, in inverse proportion. The more serious the resource becomes, the more meticulously its owners relate to getting rid of unnecessary advertising garbage on their pages, the more strict the contract with advertisers, however, the yield from such “weighted” advertising does not always increase in terms of unit advertisers meet the requirements and target audience regarding the specialization of the resource. At the same time, the value, completeness and quality of information on a specialized resource will be significantly higher than the combined or universal purpose, where, along with the violin, vibrators and other nonsense are sold to the sufferingivars. In principle, the monetization of all media content due to advertising resembles a vicious circle that turns the Internet exclusively into an advertising platform. It is unlikely that the Internet will enjoy the interest of users, becoming primarily an advertising platform.
How, then, to resolve the existing tensions, without splashing out together with the copyright holders and the author himself, if not the Internet as a whole?
If this answer were simple and already found, then the discussions would have become irrelevant. To resolve this issue, it is necessary not to reject the attempts of right holders to do something in the legislation, but on the contrary - to take part in the formation of a legislative model that allows finding the formula for mutually beneficial interaction of all participants in the content turnover. As long as there is no dialogue, and there is only opposition to different points of view, only two outcomes are possible:
1 / destroy the system of creating and delivering content to the consumer in favor of copying and free distribution, getting a period of failure in its creation and relevance, and sticking another stick in the wheels of the global economy, which is already derailed in the expectation of revival in a new form. The fabulous principle of Phoenix frolic can certainly work, but in any case it will take time.
2 / slow down the network impact on the real sector until the ways of transition to the new model of media product creation systems have been put on to the extent that their dependence on the real sector is minimal.
It is possible that the promotion of SOPA and did not count on the adoption of the bill, and was intended only to encourage dialogue and to allow the development of the scenario along the second path.
Definitely - in its current form, copyright will not exist for a long time, just as the market of physical carriers and the old economic model. The main thing is to achieve change without global turmoil. especially in a shaky economy. It is time to address these issues at a serious level, not only to copyright holders. If people want to change something, they should not just “go to rallies”, but take real steps and make real proposals. Between the authorities (right holders) and the opposition (users) the truth is somewhere in the middle, but not where they sit on two chairs (see the beginning of the post). Davate to search for this middle. Judging by the number of weighted judgments in the comments on Habré, this is just the right site, where most of those present are familiar with the moment of content production and (no one has left it yet) of its consumption in approximately equal measure.
For example, my suggestion is:
Copy right - literally, the right to copy. This right holders receive in exchange for certain services and benefits directly from the authors. If this right, according to users, should belong to them, then it is worth making clear proposals to the authors about providing them with certain goods and services in exchange for works. Authors who are satisfied with these conditions - transfer the right not to the user community, as an organization (return to right-holder organizations), but as to all users. Such a scheme for obtaining rights to copy and distribute the work fits perfectly both within the framework of current legislation and possible heavy bills like SOPA, in no way violates the legitimate interests of right-holder organizations and may well develop in parallel with the current system, creating an alternative for authors. And the more attractive and successful this alternative becomes (and some examples already exist), the less new rights will be transferred to the organizations by the authors.
Such a maneuver, of course, will be stretched in time, but will help avoid economic and other shocks. And if the retention of rights by organizations becomes unprofitable, they will also be able to find a way to transfer the rights to the public on compromise conditions.
PS
Religion copy-paste preached in some local posts on the topic of copyrights - again, somewhat contradicts the points "What is not Habr" habrahabr.ru/info/help/rules
And the problem here is not only in an attempt to fit into the framework of the law, or copyright protection, but also in limiting the number of junk copies and plagiarism, raising the barrier to a level that requires a creative approach to expressing your thoughts, through which more thoughtful ones can get over articles. Barrier, which increases the value of the habr as an information resource.
The position of content consumers is very clear, - to pull the right to free use of media materials. As you know - any buyer wants to buy cheaper, or even for nothing. At the same time, the main motive is the greed of the “evil owners”.
However, no one has yet managed to escape consumption, both to you and me, as well as to employees and owners of companies-owners of rights. Therefore, each of us understands the psychology of consumption from the inside. Few people understand the psychology and motivation of the right holder.
At the same time, it is difficult not to notice that a number of network figures who expressed their protests on SOPA with blackouts are frankly trying to sit on two chairs, because they themselves are very dependent on adhering to the sets of rules that allow them to maintain their position and identity. For example, Facebook will indeed suffer losses in the event of monitoring copyright infringement on the network, however, it will suffer at least as much in the absence of such control. After reviewing the rules of the resources of these companies, it is easy to guess that most of them are based on copyright, and are designed to protect the interests of the company itself, in the use of design, development, and trademarks of the company itself. Protest actions organized by these figures attract users to their side, relying on their position, however, the companies themselves are not fully ready to give up their rights. At the moment, the issue of regulating them, activities, is more acute for them, so they use the sentiments of the masses to protect their interests, but only until the desire for freedom on the part of the masses disagrees with the benefits of these companies. And in some cases in relation to users will position themselves as copyright holders.
')
Let's look objectively - we will take a position from above, becoming aloof from consuming content or making a profit from it.
There is an emerging economic model of media business, and this model is quite firmly seated in the general model of the global economy.
There is also a publicly available technology for copying, storing and sharing information, which also includes media content.
The first model is old and collapses under current conditions. However, abandoning it in favor of the new one is like taking and cutting off a huge chunk of the economy overnight.
In the face of global economic turbulence, such a move can be destructive for the entire economic system. Entering the network and applying the new model overnight is also impossible. Representatives of the old model, in particular copyright holders and authors, are well aware of the need to change the old model to the new one and work on it, as well as introduce new approaches in their work. However, the speed of development of the network and increase its users. as well as the rate of receipt of new content there and its distribution significantly exceeds the rate of emergence of new models of monetization of the results of the authors and other persons directly involved in the preparation of the product. Therefore, the position of rights holders and the measures taken are designed to slow down the process of disintegration just enough so that the occupied sector of the economy could be reborn and not collapse, dragging many adjacent sectors and the economy as a whole.
For some reason, rejecting the old system, defenders of the “free Internet” put down other intermediaries in the new model, falling into the illusion of direct content delivery from the author to the consumer. Direct exchange in the network at a certain scale is an illusion. Already in the present conditions, when the receipt of new copies into the network is not considered legal, although it cannot be regulated, the number of duplicates and, in general, informational garbage in the network exceeds all conceivable limits. Search engines and contextual advertising promise us happiness, but we still have to spend precious time searching for relevant information, often giving up on the result of many hours of shoveling the web.
Jamming foums, comments requires the existence of moderators, rating systems and other innovations that also do not appear from the air.
Believe me, the Internet has received such distribution and development no longer on altruistic ideas and is becoming increasingly commercialized. Consumer ideas for product monetization are utopian or short-sighted. Yes, there are good examples of resources available for alms grateful users, but they are at the moment an exception to the existing rule. If you accept voluntary remuneration for the rule, it will cease to be an exception and attract petitioners. In addition, it is one of the ways to collect funds, long attracted fraudsters for its simplicity. Again, the determining factor in the number of applicants in such a system becomes popularity - and it is not a criterion of quality and value to be produced, in the end, fundraising leaders will be resources / companies that have chosen the most successful marketing strategy and rating methods, SEO specialists and other network craftsmen, not those whose product will be the most ingenious. And so we return again to the issue of advertising and promotion, which is no less acute in the network than in advertising in other media, and is also proposed as one of the ways to monetize copyright work. By the quantity and quality of advertising on the portal, you can determine its information utility - more often, in inverse proportion. The more serious the resource becomes, the more meticulously its owners relate to getting rid of unnecessary advertising garbage on their pages, the more strict the contract with advertisers, however, the yield from such “weighted” advertising does not always increase in terms of unit advertisers meet the requirements and target audience regarding the specialization of the resource. At the same time, the value, completeness and quality of information on a specialized resource will be significantly higher than the combined or universal purpose, where, along with the violin, vibrators and other nonsense are sold to the sufferingivars. In principle, the monetization of all media content due to advertising resembles a vicious circle that turns the Internet exclusively into an advertising platform. It is unlikely that the Internet will enjoy the interest of users, becoming primarily an advertising platform.
How, then, to resolve the existing tensions, without splashing out together with the copyright holders and the author himself, if not the Internet as a whole?
If this answer were simple and already found, then the discussions would have become irrelevant. To resolve this issue, it is necessary not to reject the attempts of right holders to do something in the legislation, but on the contrary - to take part in the formation of a legislative model that allows finding the formula for mutually beneficial interaction of all participants in the content turnover. As long as there is no dialogue, and there is only opposition to different points of view, only two outcomes are possible:
1 / destroy the system of creating and delivering content to the consumer in favor of copying and free distribution, getting a period of failure in its creation and relevance, and sticking another stick in the wheels of the global economy, which is already derailed in the expectation of revival in a new form. The fabulous principle of Phoenix frolic can certainly work, but in any case it will take time.
2 / slow down the network impact on the real sector until the ways of transition to the new model of media product creation systems have been put on to the extent that their dependence on the real sector is minimal.
It is possible that the promotion of SOPA and did not count on the adoption of the bill, and was intended only to encourage dialogue and to allow the development of the scenario along the second path.
Definitely - in its current form, copyright will not exist for a long time, just as the market of physical carriers and the old economic model. The main thing is to achieve change without global turmoil. especially in a shaky economy. It is time to address these issues at a serious level, not only to copyright holders. If people want to change something, they should not just “go to rallies”, but take real steps and make real proposals. Between the authorities (right holders) and the opposition (users) the truth is somewhere in the middle, but not where they sit on two chairs (see the beginning of the post). Davate to search for this middle. Judging by the number of weighted judgments in the comments on Habré, this is just the right site, where most of those present are familiar with the moment of content production and (no one has left it yet) of its consumption in approximately equal measure.
For example, my suggestion is:
Copy right - literally, the right to copy. This right holders receive in exchange for certain services and benefits directly from the authors. If this right, according to users, should belong to them, then it is worth making clear proposals to the authors about providing them with certain goods and services in exchange for works. Authors who are satisfied with these conditions - transfer the right not to the user community, as an organization (return to right-holder organizations), but as to all users. Such a scheme for obtaining rights to copy and distribute the work fits perfectly both within the framework of current legislation and possible heavy bills like SOPA, in no way violates the legitimate interests of right-holder organizations and may well develop in parallel with the current system, creating an alternative for authors. And the more attractive and successful this alternative becomes (and some examples already exist), the less new rights will be transferred to the organizations by the authors.
Such a maneuver, of course, will be stretched in time, but will help avoid economic and other shocks. And if the retention of rights by organizations becomes unprofitable, they will also be able to find a way to transfer the rights to the public on compromise conditions.
PS
Religion copy-paste preached in some local posts on the topic of copyrights - again, somewhat contradicts the points "What is not Habr" habrahabr.ru/info/help/rules
And the problem here is not only in an attempt to fit into the framework of the law, or copyright protection, but also in limiting the number of junk copies and plagiarism, raising the barrier to a level that requires a creative approach to expressing your thoughts, through which more thoughtful ones can get over articles. Barrier, which increases the value of the habr as an information resource.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/137831/
All Articles