Copyright: And what laws, in fact, do we want?
What is happening in the field of intellectual property does not suit anyone - neither the producers of digital goods, nor their consumers. What manufacturers of digital products want, we all know. But what do consumers want? I read quite a few articles on the subject of copyright, but somehow I did not find clear thoughts about the reward system for producers of digital goods, which would suit the consumers of these goods. But at the same time, everybody perfectly understands that some kind of reward system is needed, because otherwise these products simply will not.
I decided on what I would like to see, and share with you my thoughts. The basic idea is that not consumers, but producers of digital goods follow the rules, “as for real goods” for their digital goods.
For clarity, I will draw an analogy with the construction of the vessel. The company is building a ship. Partly on their own, partly gives to outsourcing. When the ship is built and handed over, the company receives money from the customer, pays for the loans for which it financed the construction of the ship and makes a profit. Can a firm, while remaining within the legal framework, sell a ship twice and make a profit twice? No, he can not. And why manufacturers of digital products can? Because all buyers will receive the goods for which they pay money and will be satisfied. But what is a ship or any other real goods? This is a job. This is an embedded man-clock. And what is a digital product? This is the same job spent developing man-hours. So why can some man-hours be sold only once, and others an infinite number of times?
Is there an injured party here? Yes there is. These are all manufacturers of real goods. They do not have the key opportunity to endlessly sell once produced goods.
But in fact, right now, direct producers of digital products sell their creations only once. I mean, now to promote your product without a publisher is almost impossible. Almost all firms engaged in the production of digital goods, sell their works by publishers. And already publishers repeatedly sell once purchased digital goods. It is clear that they sell it at prices thousands of times lower than the amount they paid for this digital product to direct producers, but then they sell it to millions.
')
So what? They risked their money by buying this digital product and now have the full right to all profits from the resale of this product. No, they do not. Because profits are going wild. And because, like other types of businesses that potentially generate very large profits, the sale of digital goods must be licensed. For example, gambling - what is the essence of licensing gambling? In the artificial limitation of profits and limiting areas where you can play. In the case of digital products, profit margins are enough.
What it should look like.
Everything sounds simple - the publisher buys his product from the direct manufacturer of digital goods and resells it. Naturally, he invests more money in product promotion, marketing, and distribution. Then sales begin, but as soon as the publisher pays for his expenses and receives a statutory percentage of net profit, he is immediately obliged to transfer this digital product to the Public Domain. Who are the judges? Those who have all the financial statements of the publisher - the tax office.
And if the publisher takes only a percentage of profits, and the main part is received directly by the company - the creator? So licensing and restriction is subject to the profit of the company-creator of digital goods. It’s the same if the maker itself sells its products. Her profit will also be limited and she will be able to resell the work of her employees only a set number of times.
But such a system rows all one size fits all. Why do something better than others, if you still get the same profit? So you need a system to increase profits, depending on the success of the product. But what is the measure of success? Obviously - money.
Regressive scale.
All money received in the first three months of sales is not subject to profit limitations. If, after three months, the profit exceeded, say, 500%, then the product goes into the Public Domain.
If at some point in time during the second three months, the profit exceeded this required 500%, then the product immediately goes into the Public Domain. If not, then after these three months, that is, after 6 months from the start of sales, the transition to the Public Domain drops to 250%.
If at some point in time during the third three months, the profit has already exceeded 250%, then the product again goes into the Public Domain. If not, the bar goes down to 125. And so on until the percentage reaches the statutory margin of profit.
Such a regressive scale should seriously encourage publishers and firms to create successful products sold and, in fact, to speed up their transition to the Public Domain.
And what about the loner? The person who created the digital product himself and sells it himself? Or with enthusiastic garage firms? Probably the most reasonable thing is not to limit their profits. Why? Firstly, because it is impossible to calculate their costs. And secondly, and this is important to encourage people to do this. In order not to kill the dream.
Computer piracy.
I seriously believe that the introduction of such a system could lead to the disappearance or, at least, a significant reduction in computer piracy.
Basically, of course, due to the imputed timing of the transition of the most popular products to the Public Domain. Three months is not 70 years old.
But there is something else:
In my opinion, the problem of computer piracy is that, in committing theft, I do not feel any guilt behind me.
Who do I do damage when downloading the same COD MW2? The developer company has already received its $ 50 million and paid off with the direct creators in the form of salaries. Distribution and marketing received their $ 150 million. And the game raised $ 1 billion in two months. Who got this 400% profit? Received the company Activision, that is Activision Blizzard, 57% of the shares of which, in turn, belong to Vivendi. Who is it? Yes, I have no idea, but these are definitely not the people who made the game. And I do not feel and will not feel the slightest remorse, using pirated content from major publishers. From my actions, the developers do not suffer. It turns out that piracy is something akin to stealing from a state under the Soviet Union. It seems that you steal, and it seems to be bad, but who exactly you are doing badly is not clear. Carrying out something from the plant, the man believed that he only regains what the state did not give him. And piracy is the same.
The system does not look legitimate. And because piracy does not seem to be a crime.
It seems to me that the regressive scale described above would be more or less fair in the eyes of the majority of consumers, and this would dislodge the moral basis of piracy. Most people are honest. And they mean well. At least this is true for countries where Ebay agrees to work. If people knew for certain that they were hurting other people using pirated goods, they would not have done that. I believe in it.
How to deal with remastering?
And one more question - the change of a digital product already in the Public Domain.
Suppose someone decided to remaster a record located in the Public Domain. He spends some work and resources on it and gets the right to receive some kind of profit, depending on the resources spent. At the same time, the original digital product from the Public Domain does not go anywhere. The company or the person who made the remastering has rights only to the new version, and only to it.
Patent Wars
In addition, I think that such a system can help in the case of modern patent wars.
Patents are needed - this has been evident for several centuries already, they have stimulated the dissemination of information about new technologies, and they are making progress in this way. Patents are harmful, it has become obvious lately - they restrict the introduction of new technologies and are clearly detrimental to everyone except law firms.
I argue that the main problem of patents is a constant of 25 years. Regardless of the relevance and importance of the patent, the creator receives 25 years of exclusive rights to this patent. In my opinion, this is wrong. The duration of the patent should depend on the utility of the patent.
What is considered a measure of the utility of a patent? Money. Profit, which was obtained from the implementation of this invention. And again, it would be better if the scale is not progressive - the more money a patent generates, the longer the duration of the patent, but regressive.
Regressive scale:
All money earned by a patent in the first year goes to the patent owner.
If during the first year the patent paid back the development cost at least 256 times, then the patent immediately expires.
If not, then the patent owner is given another year to make a profit. If during the second year the patent pays for itself 256 times, the patent immediately expires.
If after the second year the patent did not pay for itself 256 times, then the profit limit is reduced to 128.
If not, then the owner has a chance to recoup his costs 128 times during the third year of the patent. And so on. The fourth year of the patent - 64 times. Fifth - 32, Sixth - 16, Seventh - 8. Eighth 4. And ninth 2. Tenth - well, just in case. After ten years, the patent loses its power, regardless of profit.
How is this scale better? By stimulating innovation and accelerating progress, no matter how loud it sounds. Such a scale will encourage inventors and industrialists to implement inventions as quickly as possible.
And again, if the income from the invention goes directly to the author or a group of authors, then the term of the patent is the same - 25 years. If the author has sold the patent, then the regressive scale comes into play.
But whether it will lead to problems with insufficient testing of the product, before its release in life? It may well lead. And this can have disastrous consequences, for example, in pharmacology. Therefore, the time of validity of a patent should be counted not from the time of patent registration, but from the start of sales of the first product in which this patent is used. But, naturally, the time that can pass from registration and before the start of sales should also be limited.
How to calculate profit from a patent and how to calculate the cost of developing a patent?
The cost of the development of the invention in any company is quite possible to count, at least in the salaries of the person who created this invention. Or in general, as all the costs of R & D.
How to calculate the profit received from this invention? How much did Apple bring unlocka? Who bought the iPhone for this unlock mechanism? What part of the income came from the work of marketers, and what from the work of the R & D department?
I see the solution in that if there is one or several goods using a certain patent, to calculate the time of validity of this patent to count all profits from the sale of this product / goods coming from the patents. Not from marketing, but only from patents. Because it will be more confusing. Such a system will lead to the fact that investment in innovation will become significantly more profitable. The more expensive the equipment, the higher the salaries of all the staff, and above all scientists, the longer the term of the patent and the more money the company will earn on this patent. This of course will lead to various frauds, but forcing money into R & D is not so bad.
Well, if several patents are used in one product, then the profits from the use of a patent should be considered in proportion to the cost of developing these patents.
The case of free search.
This is pharmaceuticals. Suppose a certain pharmaceutical company has an R & D unit. There are 20 departments, in parallel leading work on hundreds of projects. And here is one of these projects shot. There is a new medicine. It is registered as a new medicine on January 1, 2020. The previous drug of this company was registered on January 1st, 2018. It means that by the cost of development, it declares everything that the company has spent on all its R & D unit over the previous two years. And what is considered a profit from this development? All profits from the new drug.
Conclusion
And the key question remains - why should any state of the world adopt the laws described? After all, it is obvious that in the short and medium term, such laws will lead to a decrease in the profits of companies, and hence the revenues of the state. And also, probably, to an outflow of investments and business emigration. I am afraid that not a single state will want to be the first to adopt such laws.
But maybe, someday, under public pressure, states will be able to pass such laws all together. And to regulate the relationship between consumers and manufacturers of digital goods, taking into account not only the interests of producers, but also the interests of consumers.
I decided on what I would like to see, and share with you my thoughts. The basic idea is that not consumers, but producers of digital goods follow the rules, “as for real goods” for their digital goods.
For clarity, I will draw an analogy with the construction of the vessel. The company is building a ship. Partly on their own, partly gives to outsourcing. When the ship is built and handed over, the company receives money from the customer, pays for the loans for which it financed the construction of the ship and makes a profit. Can a firm, while remaining within the legal framework, sell a ship twice and make a profit twice? No, he can not. And why manufacturers of digital products can? Because all buyers will receive the goods for which they pay money and will be satisfied. But what is a ship or any other real goods? This is a job. This is an embedded man-clock. And what is a digital product? This is the same job spent developing man-hours. So why can some man-hours be sold only once, and others an infinite number of times?
Is there an injured party here? Yes there is. These are all manufacturers of real goods. They do not have the key opportunity to endlessly sell once produced goods.
But in fact, right now, direct producers of digital products sell their creations only once. I mean, now to promote your product without a publisher is almost impossible. Almost all firms engaged in the production of digital goods, sell their works by publishers. And already publishers repeatedly sell once purchased digital goods. It is clear that they sell it at prices thousands of times lower than the amount they paid for this digital product to direct producers, but then they sell it to millions.
')
So what? They risked their money by buying this digital product and now have the full right to all profits from the resale of this product. No, they do not. Because profits are going wild. And because, like other types of businesses that potentially generate very large profits, the sale of digital goods must be licensed. For example, gambling - what is the essence of licensing gambling? In the artificial limitation of profits and limiting areas where you can play. In the case of digital products, profit margins are enough.
What it should look like.
Everything sounds simple - the publisher buys his product from the direct manufacturer of digital goods and resells it. Naturally, he invests more money in product promotion, marketing, and distribution. Then sales begin, but as soon as the publisher pays for his expenses and receives a statutory percentage of net profit, he is immediately obliged to transfer this digital product to the Public Domain. Who are the judges? Those who have all the financial statements of the publisher - the tax office.
And if the publisher takes only a percentage of profits, and the main part is received directly by the company - the creator? So licensing and restriction is subject to the profit of the company-creator of digital goods. It’s the same if the maker itself sells its products. Her profit will also be limited and she will be able to resell the work of her employees only a set number of times.
But such a system rows all one size fits all. Why do something better than others, if you still get the same profit? So you need a system to increase profits, depending on the success of the product. But what is the measure of success? Obviously - money.
Regressive scale.
All money received in the first three months of sales is not subject to profit limitations. If, after three months, the profit exceeded, say, 500%, then the product goes into the Public Domain.
If at some point in time during the second three months, the profit exceeded this required 500%, then the product immediately goes into the Public Domain. If not, then after these three months, that is, after 6 months from the start of sales, the transition to the Public Domain drops to 250%.
If at some point in time during the third three months, the profit has already exceeded 250%, then the product again goes into the Public Domain. If not, the bar goes down to 125. And so on until the percentage reaches the statutory margin of profit.
Such a regressive scale should seriously encourage publishers and firms to create successful products sold and, in fact, to speed up their transition to the Public Domain.
And what about the loner? The person who created the digital product himself and sells it himself? Or with enthusiastic garage firms? Probably the most reasonable thing is not to limit their profits. Why? Firstly, because it is impossible to calculate their costs. And secondly, and this is important to encourage people to do this. In order not to kill the dream.
Computer piracy.
I seriously believe that the introduction of such a system could lead to the disappearance or, at least, a significant reduction in computer piracy.
Basically, of course, due to the imputed timing of the transition of the most popular products to the Public Domain. Three months is not 70 years old.
But there is something else:
In my opinion, the problem of computer piracy is that, in committing theft, I do not feel any guilt behind me.
Who do I do damage when downloading the same COD MW2? The developer company has already received its $ 50 million and paid off with the direct creators in the form of salaries. Distribution and marketing received their $ 150 million. And the game raised $ 1 billion in two months. Who got this 400% profit? Received the company Activision, that is Activision Blizzard, 57% of the shares of which, in turn, belong to Vivendi. Who is it? Yes, I have no idea, but these are definitely not the people who made the game. And I do not feel and will not feel the slightest remorse, using pirated content from major publishers. From my actions, the developers do not suffer. It turns out that piracy is something akin to stealing from a state under the Soviet Union. It seems that you steal, and it seems to be bad, but who exactly you are doing badly is not clear. Carrying out something from the plant, the man believed that he only regains what the state did not give him. And piracy is the same.
The system does not look legitimate. And because piracy does not seem to be a crime.
It seems to me that the regressive scale described above would be more or less fair in the eyes of the majority of consumers, and this would dislodge the moral basis of piracy. Most people are honest. And they mean well. At least this is true for countries where Ebay agrees to work. If people knew for certain that they were hurting other people using pirated goods, they would not have done that. I believe in it.
How to deal with remastering?
And one more question - the change of a digital product already in the Public Domain.
Suppose someone decided to remaster a record located in the Public Domain. He spends some work and resources on it and gets the right to receive some kind of profit, depending on the resources spent. At the same time, the original digital product from the Public Domain does not go anywhere. The company or the person who made the remastering has rights only to the new version, and only to it.
Patent Wars
In addition, I think that such a system can help in the case of modern patent wars.
Patents are needed - this has been evident for several centuries already, they have stimulated the dissemination of information about new technologies, and they are making progress in this way. Patents are harmful, it has become obvious lately - they restrict the introduction of new technologies and are clearly detrimental to everyone except law firms.
I argue that the main problem of patents is a constant of 25 years. Regardless of the relevance and importance of the patent, the creator receives 25 years of exclusive rights to this patent. In my opinion, this is wrong. The duration of the patent should depend on the utility of the patent.
What is considered a measure of the utility of a patent? Money. Profit, which was obtained from the implementation of this invention. And again, it would be better if the scale is not progressive - the more money a patent generates, the longer the duration of the patent, but regressive.
Regressive scale:
All money earned by a patent in the first year goes to the patent owner.
If during the first year the patent paid back the development cost at least 256 times, then the patent immediately expires.
If not, then the patent owner is given another year to make a profit. If during the second year the patent pays for itself 256 times, the patent immediately expires.
If after the second year the patent did not pay for itself 256 times, then the profit limit is reduced to 128.
If not, then the owner has a chance to recoup his costs 128 times during the third year of the patent. And so on. The fourth year of the patent - 64 times. Fifth - 32, Sixth - 16, Seventh - 8. Eighth 4. And ninth 2. Tenth - well, just in case. After ten years, the patent loses its power, regardless of profit.
How is this scale better? By stimulating innovation and accelerating progress, no matter how loud it sounds. Such a scale will encourage inventors and industrialists to implement inventions as quickly as possible.
And again, if the income from the invention goes directly to the author or a group of authors, then the term of the patent is the same - 25 years. If the author has sold the patent, then the regressive scale comes into play.
But whether it will lead to problems with insufficient testing of the product, before its release in life? It may well lead. And this can have disastrous consequences, for example, in pharmacology. Therefore, the time of validity of a patent should be counted not from the time of patent registration, but from the start of sales of the first product in which this patent is used. But, naturally, the time that can pass from registration and before the start of sales should also be limited.
How to calculate profit from a patent and how to calculate the cost of developing a patent?
The cost of the development of the invention in any company is quite possible to count, at least in the salaries of the person who created this invention. Or in general, as all the costs of R & D.
How to calculate the profit received from this invention? How much did Apple bring unlocka? Who bought the iPhone for this unlock mechanism? What part of the income came from the work of marketers, and what from the work of the R & D department?
I see the solution in that if there is one or several goods using a certain patent, to calculate the time of validity of this patent to count all profits from the sale of this product / goods coming from the patents. Not from marketing, but only from patents. Because it will be more confusing. Such a system will lead to the fact that investment in innovation will become significantly more profitable. The more expensive the equipment, the higher the salaries of all the staff, and above all scientists, the longer the term of the patent and the more money the company will earn on this patent. This of course will lead to various frauds, but forcing money into R & D is not so bad.
Well, if several patents are used in one product, then the profits from the use of a patent should be considered in proportion to the cost of developing these patents.
The case of free search.
This is pharmaceuticals. Suppose a certain pharmaceutical company has an R & D unit. There are 20 departments, in parallel leading work on hundreds of projects. And here is one of these projects shot. There is a new medicine. It is registered as a new medicine on January 1, 2020. The previous drug of this company was registered on January 1st, 2018. It means that by the cost of development, it declares everything that the company has spent on all its R & D unit over the previous two years. And what is considered a profit from this development? All profits from the new drug.
Conclusion
And the key question remains - why should any state of the world adopt the laws described? After all, it is obvious that in the short and medium term, such laws will lead to a decrease in the profits of companies, and hence the revenues of the state. And also, probably, to an outflow of investments and business emigration. I am afraid that not a single state will want to be the first to adopt such laws.
But maybe, someday, under public pressure, states will be able to pass such laws all together. And to regulate the relationship between consumers and manufacturers of digital goods, taking into account not only the interests of producers, but also the interests of consumers.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/139503/
All Articles