Once again about the movie, or together with the water and throw out the child
Now the Internet community has raised a very tangible excitement about the adoption by the Duma of the draft law “On the Protection of Intellectual Property”. Both the legal aspects of the draft law and the technical aspects of its implementation are discussed. I would like to touch on the cultural implications of the bill.
A personal example is not indicative, but still I can not say that no one among my peers is watching TV. The lion's share of cultural products is consumed via the Internet. This clearly indicates that society itself has changed. Until lawmakers understand this, any such legislation will create conflicts.
So who is this child whom this bill dooms to be spilled out? In my opinion, first of all, this is an independent and author's cinema. Unlike composing and playing music, writing books, creating objects of painting and photography, filmmaking requires significant costs. In return for helping to finance the work, the filmmakers are forced to give copyright to future rightholders and not be able to manage their work. Rolling fate in Russia for most of these paintings - shows with subtitles in a couple of three cinemas in Moscow and St. Petersburg. As well as showing at several festivals with an even narrower circle of spectators. In exceptional cases (and in the absence of nudity within the screen time) - a show on “Culture” / “Russia-K”.
')
But there was an alternative: it so happened that since the beginning of the 2000s, the prevalence of broadband Internet access and the availability of p2p technologies have coincided with the enforcement vacuum in the field of intellectual property. People anywhere in Russia (where there is Internet) have the opportunity to watch the author’s cinema, which is generally far from the use of the words “content” and “consumption”.
With the entry into force of the bill, this opportunity will be lost. While for other types and genres of audiovisual products (in the language of lawmakers), this is not the case: in the case of tight control of the bill, we should expect explosive growth in film distribution for entertainment cinema (it should be borne in mind that the prevalence of 3D technologies in cinemas significantly overtakes that of viewers at home), as well as subscription and / or copy-protected streaming videos as a replacement for film production on physical media.
I am not a supporter of copyright in the digital era, but if the application of the draft law under discussion is unavoidable, then some kind of protectionism is also required for the types and genres of cinema with which this bill "blocks oxygen".
A personal example is not indicative, but still I can not say that no one among my peers is watching TV. The lion's share of cultural products is consumed via the Internet. This clearly indicates that society itself has changed. Until lawmakers understand this, any such legislation will create conflicts.
So who is this child whom this bill dooms to be spilled out? In my opinion, first of all, this is an independent and author's cinema. Unlike composing and playing music, writing books, creating objects of painting and photography, filmmaking requires significant costs. In return for helping to finance the work, the filmmakers are forced to give copyright to future rightholders and not be able to manage their work. Rolling fate in Russia for most of these paintings - shows with subtitles in a couple of three cinemas in Moscow and St. Petersburg. As well as showing at several festivals with an even narrower circle of spectators. In exceptional cases (and in the absence of nudity within the screen time) - a show on “Culture” / “Russia-K”.
')
But there was an alternative: it so happened that since the beginning of the 2000s, the prevalence of broadband Internet access and the availability of p2p technologies have coincided with the enforcement vacuum in the field of intellectual property. People anywhere in Russia (where there is Internet) have the opportunity to watch the author’s cinema, which is generally far from the use of the words “content” and “consumption”.
With the entry into force of the bill, this opportunity will be lost. While for other types and genres of audiovisual products (in the language of lawmakers), this is not the case: in the case of tight control of the bill, we should expect explosive growth in film distribution for entertainment cinema (it should be borne in mind that the prevalence of 3D technologies in cinemas significantly overtakes that of viewers at home), as well as subscription and / or copy-protected streaming videos as a replacement for film production on physical media.
I am not a supporter of copyright in the digital era, but if the application of the draft law under discussion is unavoidable, then some kind of protectionism is also required for the types and genres of cinema with which this bill "blocks oxygen".
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/184238/
All Articles