Once again about copyright, or freedom in everything

How do we buy movies, music or programs now?
We pay for the purchase of a copy, which they are trying in every possible way to protect from further copying.

I would note that the situation with the programs is separate and much closer to what I want to talk about - they have been monetized for a long time according to the models of trial use, voluntary contributions, money back and others, allowing you to decide whether you need to buy them.

With movies and with music, the situation is more complicated - at best, there are firms selling them, and you find yourself tied to this company by buying a piece through it.
Moreover, if you purchased a copy with a digital tag will go somewhere, even by accident, you can make a complaint.
')
And let's imagine for a moment that the distribution of the material will be free , and you will have to pay not for a copy, but only for the personal right to use the work, and it is valid all over the world?

What is the benefit: you can download a movie from where it is convenient - even from a file sharing service, even from a torrent, even if you copy a disk from a friend.
The concept of "pirated copy" will disappear.

I believe that people will, sooner or later, consciously pay for the content that they want to use, and such a system will work.
Actually, with all the availability of torrents, and movies, and music, and programs are buying now.

The only thing that will change is that file sharing will become completely legal, and the purchase will be voluntary and, therefore, more conscious.

The principle is simple - first you buy the right to use for the full cost, evaluate and:
- if you like, you leave to yourself, consciously supporting the manufacturer;
- if you do not like it, you return the money, depending on the time already elapsed.

I understand that it sounds slightly futuristic, but I propose to discuss the fundamental possibility of such an approach, including from a technical point of view, and its pros and cons.

Details further, add in comments if I missed something.

Small clarification.
We are talking only about electronic information - because it does not spoil the “presentation”, and that it can be copied completely in its original quality.
Commercial use is also not relevant to this topic - it is separately determined by contracts.
And I pay a little more attention to films (and with them to music), since the principle of “try and buy” has been applied for a long time with programs.

So, in my opinion, for this you need:

1) A global account for everyone.

It says that I, the account owner, bought a personal right to watch these films / listen to songs / use programs, etc.

Not anonymous. Its meaning is that it is easy to prove that the right belongs to me.

The account should not depend on any company or country, it should be available from everywhere, where you will need to prove my right to use.

For maximum reliability and independence, the base should be distributed and decentralized.
Today, this opportunity gives P2P.
In the future, more reliable technologies will probably appear, so it should be possible to transfer data to a new system (for some time it will operate in parallel with the old one).

Visual confirmation of the possibility of the existence of a worldwide system - Bitcoin.

Just like with a regular disk, viewing with friends is considered personal use.
If they like it, they can buy their own licenses.

2) Separate sale of localizations and additional versions.

Video, audio and other content are purchased separately.

For example, if I want to watch a movie in additional languages ​​(if a translation has already been made), then I simply pay extra for these tracks, sound, video, etc.
An alternative translation came out - to buy and look.

A “director's version” has been released - I buy at a discount if I have already bought a regular one.

The same with paid localization of programs, including games.

3) Improving quality with the advent of new technologies.

I think it’s wrong to introduce mark-up for quality levels.

At the time of the film’s release by the manufacturer, the license simply covers the maximum quality released.
Decreasing quality for the sake of price reduction is artificial and will only create confusion.
It is better to set a reasonable price immediately for maximum quality.

If in the future the film will be restored or transferred to new formats - UltraHD, 3D, “48 FPS”, etc. - then release them as additional versions.
It does not pay for the increased quality itself, but the cost of the translation process into it.

And:
- if the film has already been purchased earlier in the previous format, only the updated track is purchased - video, sound, etc .;
- if the film was not purchased, the license for improved quality automatically includes all formats of lower quality.

Another example: a film from a film was digitized by 2 different studios, and there are 2 different versions.
I buy, look, compare, and leave the one that I liked more, and for the second I return the money almost completely (almost, because I used it for a while while I compared it).

They can take advantage of this, gradually releasing more and more “super-quality and supernova” options, but I think such unscrupulous manufacturers will quickly become obvious and they will stop buying.
Competition and a money back system will allow you to choose normal ones.

4) Refund on refusal.

It's simple.
I changed my mind almost immediately - the full price is returned.
The later refused, the less return.

You can buy again for the balance, which is returned at the beginning.
After some time of use, the return balance reaches zero, and the film becomes purchased for unlimited viewing - just like if you buy a disc and can watch it as much as you like.

The full repayment period can be set relative to the length of the work - sufficient to decide on a full purchase.
Alternatively: 3 weeks for a 3-hour movie.
I think the balance should decrease linearly so that you can safely assess the correctness of the purchase.

It is impossible to refuse from already purchased time of use.

For programs where there is no “viewing duration”, the assessment period can be set by the author - just as it is done now in shareware.

5) Storage systems and carriers.

The most obvious storage method in this case, in my opinion, will be torrents, as secure distributed storage.
Or what comes to replace them.

In case there are no distributions with a copy of the work, there should be digital libraries.
For payback, downloading of them can be either not free (but not expensive), or for viewing ads.
Online viewing is also possible.
Payment in both cases will be only for the use of equipment for storing a copy and for its transfer to you, plus an extra charge.
Large markups will be unprofitable, as there is an alternative to free distribution in the form of torrents.

In addition, libraries can be supported by the state - it seems to me that it will be more profitable than chasing download torrents.

Or you can buy a copy recorded on physical media, if you want to always have your own hand at hand, for reliability.
In this case, it is paid exactly the cost of the release of the film on this medium.
You record yourself on the drive yourself - you do not pay anything.
You buy industrial quality - you pay for the disk.

There will be fewer disks and they will become more expensive, but again, it will be unprofitable to bully the prices too much, because everything is already available freely.

Total:

People bought, bought and will buy what they like.
To have "your piece."
Just the cost should be adequate.

They still buy and will buy because when you start earning on your own, you quickly realize that good things do not appear just like that, but with the labor of ordinary people who have to be paid for to continue to appear.

Often downloaded for free to evaluate before buying, because you can not return the money if you do not like it.
With this system it will be possible to return the money.

Almost any content can be freely obtained now, and it will also be possible to get it if anyone counteracts this — the more they try to restrict distribution, the more copies will appear.
Violence never led to anything good.

So does it make sense to limit distribution by force?
Is not it easier to believe in the conscience? We are all ordinary good people.

For authors, the advantage of such a system in comparison, for example, with payment after a trial period is the receipt of a part of money in any case.
But if frank trash is released, they will immediately be rejected, and this part will be scanty.
That is why the evaluation period should be set large enough.
And if the author releases trash all the time, they simply stop buying him completely , no longer looking .

Such a system would ensure greater visibility of the content and therefore increase sales.
And it would contribute to the emergence of high-quality content, because it would have liked more, and it would be more bought.

Public storage systems would become the norm.

In my opinion, many problems would be solved.
What do you say, habrovchane?
Would you buy not under duress, but only because you yourself wanted to buy?

And what do you think about the possibility of such a system?