Free dissemination of information - good?

Recently, we are increasingly hearing about the problem of distribution of content. Organizations are fined large sums of people for seemingly innocuous copying, parties are created for the free dissemination of information, news from one or the other side is heard every day ...

But what are the opponents of the RIAA fighting for? You can imagine a society where content creation is not someone's business, such as free software, for example. Only, in the first place, will people be able to create really interesting, high-quality things with bare enthusiasm? Look at youtube - here is an example of the content created by ordinary people. One can laugh at something, find out something, but is there in the midst of all this, excluding the paid content laid out, something that could be compared in quality to what one should pay money for? Let, in the format youtube not much unwind, but even with his example you can see what people can do without financial support.

Further, let's say that among youtube and other sites, there are high-quality musical and film works of the genre, but how can I dig them out among tons of trash, and even personally, I like it? There is a problem of choosing the content and it is the main one in free distribution. Yes, the mass commercial culture often moves low-quality content to the market, but it also allows real talented singers to become noticed, and artists, as it were, would say, not so, the opposite. Thus, our choice is narrowed down to the level when we can still do it. Ie, in order for the model of free distribution of content to work, we need someone to select it. And this is a task. often even harder than creating it.

If these are concrete people, then again we are slipping into the fact that he will have to pay, the artists will also want money, and we will return to our current system. If you trust the selection of content to the masses, then this does not lead to anything good. Remember the most popular videos on youtube - funny, but no more. The last.fm offers us a slightly more personalized system, only the tracks we like most often are someone else's commercial product, not free-lined music by enthusiasts. As a result, it turns out that we have problems, both with the content itself and with its choice. How to solve them and is it worth doing?
')
Consider options when, in case you liked the music of a performer, you pay him yourself. Yes, of course, the first proponents of such distribution can collect some quite good sums, but even that, only promoted for money, earlier. When copying becomes commonplace, then you don’t really want to pay for the content - “Yet they copy and it’s okay, why should I pay?”. And with an increasing number of performers, you will not pay everyone. Another non-working model.

What really should be done is to put the right holder in some rigid framework. Now, the profits of copyright holders exceed all imaginable boundaries. It seems that the bad - we live in a market economy, but for some reason there is no competition between right holders - the prices exceed all reasonable limits and tend only upwards. There were proceedings about price collusion between music labels, but it seems that he was always and does not think to disappear. At the same time, there is no any price difference between the content of different quality, especially in the gaming industry. Without a doubt, all this needs to be changed, and at the legislative level.

Now, Russia seems to aspire to the information society, where the main value is information, but we are trying to make it free. What then to build the economy - on raw materials, on the ideas of communism?