How much does the copyright holder need?

Impressed by this post, and especially the discussion that broke out after it, I would venture to continue the topic.
Some time ago I tried to write my thoughts on rights, copyrights and the bright future of the World Wide Web in the sandbox, but due to the abundance of emotions, the post probably didn’t undergone premoderation. I will try again, more balanced and dry.

If in the previous post about girl Maya it was about software patent wars (as a result of which a child can suffer), now I want to give a similar example in the field of copyright protection of media content (where there may also be victims).

Next, I ask under the cat.

So, one more example, when using its legal right the right holder deprives the user, consumer, or just Man (the last term, in my opinion, is the best suited to the topic), the opportunity to use something that is “vital” for free, and to get this something from the Man there is no possibility. And not necessarily due to lack of finance.
')
Here is the site . A wonderful collection of selected pieces of music broken down by year, starting in 1930 and to our days. Much work has been done, an abstract with key names and events has been written for each year. Everything is beautiful, understandable and imbued with the spirit of Rock'n'Rolla. And most importantly, the songs are posted as clips!
Probably many of them themselves collect such collections into a treasured daddy on a disk.

But take a closer look at the list. Some songs do not have a preview, and when you click on a link, a black screen appears with the information that the link to the resource has been deleted or blocked by the copyright holder.

"This is normal. The rightholder has the right. ”- you say. It's like that.

And now we will lose several scenarios:

one.

You accidentally went to the resource. You were not going to look for Duke Ellington, you do not even know who it is. And you did not find it, because the link was closed by the copyright holder. And you never remember this artist again.
Although, if you heard it, then perhaps your life has radically changed.
Could this be?

2

All your life you have been looking for a certain composition and suddenly found it in such a collection, moreover in the form of a clip!
And they could not see (I'm not talking about “download”), because ... well, you understood.

3

Your child is a normal teenager. And he will not go specifically to the store in search of performers of the 30s. And you specifically will not go too, because you have already grown, matured, and most importantly, you still remember how this track sounded on once-live vinyl. Remember, but not so much as to sing a melody to a son, daughter, or grandson, and the performance will still be wrong, not the original.
And the only chance for your child (our future) to stumble upon this composition is in such a collection. But, alas ...

In general, in order not to get into the bottle again, to leave the moderators at least one chance to skip the post, I want to summarize.

The existing copyright system allows the copyright holder to remove from the information (or final product) a significant portion of people who, for whatever reason, are not ready to acquire this information (or product) or in principle will not search for what they previously did not know about .
At the same time, there is a high probability that the under-received information could significantly affect the life of this person.
In fact, this state of affairs destroys our Memory with our own hands. Those. we limit ourselves in development by putting endless authorial obstacles on access to books, videos, music, to everything that we create for ourselves.

What to do? Who is guilty?

Yes, the right holder has the right to receive penalties for used copyright content, and this is correct.
But is he entitled to completely block a person’s access to information using the price barrier or other market tools?
This, of course, is only about secret information without a neck, about works of art, for example.
After all, the poor villager is extremely difficult to get into a 3D cinema on Avatar. And it's not about the cost of a ticket to the cinema, you still need to overcome 5000km to this cinema.
You say - let him download online on a paid resource, and there the price is probably less.
Indeed, you are right, you can download, and the price for the film may be less than the cost of the ticket.
Why less? Maybe because the quality of the converted film is lower, there is no presence effect, etc.? Probably yes.

So we can periodically set a quality bar for resources on the World Wide Web, below which content is distributed free of charge, due to its significant difference from the original?
And then, probably, there will be no problems with downloading movies in XviD format and a bitrate below 1000, 128Kbps MP3 music and books in .txt format without pictures and a hard cover.

And one more, I hope the moderators will miss, it does not seem strange to you that any creatures on the Net, which should be avoided by both adults and children, are in huge quantities laid out by the creators themselves (right holders) for free. To attract potential consumers, impose their point of view, etc., and, more importantly, how well it works!
And the really good and necessary things for people (books, songs, films) are trying to keep under strict control and God forbid not to allow anyone to them who did not pay the copyright, sometimes in quite a small amount.
But the Man who liked Avatar in XviD will go and buy a BD edition (if he has a BD player). Go and buy Beatles on vinyl. Go and buy the collected works of the ABS, just to put on the shelf and wipe the dust from them and read in the evenings to their children.
Will go and will gladly pay the copyright holder for all that he, Man, really needs.
It is only important that he has such an opportunity - to CHOOSE what he needs.

PS
And the Network is better than anyone and gives us the opportunity to choose.)
Pps
And create and share, so that we become smarter and better.