Publisher - Society. Is it possible to?
Almost every copyright article scolds publishers for their failure in the modern IT world. And this is quite correct. Publishers are profiting, lobbying laws, resisting new ways to distribute content, etc. - in general, it is well known for a long time.
But the question is: where are the “new publishers”? Why by the forces of people who understand how not to do everything right?
Under the cut - thoughts about an alternative version of the publisher.
Authors, as well as consumers, are interested in making their own money, and not enriching publishers in their works. Give the authors a good platform, minimal commissions, new distribution schemes, the absence of “overbidding rights”, etc. If this new system succeeds in earning at least 1% more than the authors are earning now, they will become “crowds” ...
And after all, such a hypothetical site will not need to spend money on bribes to officials, pushing laws, courts with owners, etc. If the site is built on open principles, and on the basis of open source software, commissions will be minimal, which means the cost of works will also be minimal. The result - users will go there, the site will gain influence (including political). What in the end can solve most of the problems existing today in the field of copyright.
Now something similar is offered by google and other international services (at least they don’t seem to be suing anyone and they don’t say that torrents steal billions from them). But it is still purely commercial projects and does not fully express the idea.
It is clear that the development should be carried out by community forces and be fully open. But you still need money for development, legal issues, advertising, etc ... I suggest using “transparent accounting” for this.
On a special page in the system all project expenses are posted. Starting from the rental of servers and ending with the services of lawyers or say the development of the official mobile application. And for each item - indicated the exact cost of the work.
Those items that are necessary for the survival of the system - are considered mandatory. For the rest - users can vote. At the same time, the system works on donations, as well as on a “floating” sales commission.
"Floating" - in this case means that there is an upper limit of the commission (say 1%) above which the commission can never go up. But it can fall below (up to 0%). The current commission is calculated on the basis of current expenses and decisions about the implementation of additional functionality (from the expenses page).
In principle - anything. Starting from the banal stores selling content, and forward, to various subscriptions, donat, stitched advertising, crowdfunding and other new ways of monetization about which they talk so much.
All “sub-services” are created if the community needs their development, while anyone can offer their services for discussion and if he gets enough votes, get money to implement it (if necessary) and embed it in the system.
The authors, in turn, receive a convenient "admin" in which they can simply put checkmarks in front of the services through which they want to sell the product and observe which method will attract more revenue, which will increase the audience, etc.
Since the system combines different types of content sales, it becomes possible to combine and change them very easily, quickly and without “paperwork”. What ultimately - will create benefits for authors and for consumers of content.
')
It is extremely difficult to deal with publishers when we have only logic and common sense, and they have money and power. But if you build a system that creates an alternative to publishers, shows how untenable they are, inefficient and ossified, then you can “beat them on their own field.” You can deprive their authors, and therefore deprive money and the power to make decisions for us.
But the question is: where are the “new publishers”? Why by the forces of people who understand how not to do everything right?
Under the cut - thoughts about an alternative version of the publisher.
Authors, as well as consumers, are interested in making their own money, and not enriching publishers in their works. Give the authors a good platform, minimal commissions, new distribution schemes, the absence of “overbidding rights”, etc. If this new system succeeds in earning at least 1% more than the authors are earning now, they will become “crowds” ...
And after all, such a hypothetical site will not need to spend money on bribes to officials, pushing laws, courts with owners, etc. If the site is built on open principles, and on the basis of open source software, commissions will be minimal, which means the cost of works will also be minimal. The result - users will go there, the site will gain influence (including political). What in the end can solve most of the problems existing today in the field of copyright.
Now something similar is offered by google and other international services (at least they don’t seem to be suing anyone and they don’t say that torrents steal billions from them). But it is still purely commercial projects and does not fully express the idea.
How can a similar site look like?
It is clear that the development should be carried out by community forces and be fully open. But you still need money for development, legal issues, advertising, etc ... I suggest using “transparent accounting” for this.
On a special page in the system all project expenses are posted. Starting from the rental of servers and ending with the services of lawyers or say the development of the official mobile application. And for each item - indicated the exact cost of the work.
Those items that are necessary for the survival of the system - are considered mandatory. For the rest - users can vote. At the same time, the system works on donations, as well as on a “floating” sales commission.
"Floating" - in this case means that there is an upper limit of the commission (say 1%) above which the commission can never go up. But it can fall below (up to 0%). The current commission is calculated on the basis of current expenses and decisions about the implementation of additional functionality (from the expenses page).
This is a description of the site. And what can she offer?
In principle - anything. Starting from the banal stores selling content, and forward, to various subscriptions, donat, stitched advertising, crowdfunding and other new ways of monetization about which they talk so much.
All “sub-services” are created if the community needs their development, while anyone can offer their services for discussion and if he gets enough votes, get money to implement it (if necessary) and embed it in the system.
The authors, in turn, receive a convenient "admin" in which they can simply put checkmarks in front of the services through which they want to sell the product and observe which method will attract more revenue, which will increase the audience, etc.
Since the system combines different types of content sales, it becomes possible to combine and change them very easily, quickly and without “paperwork”. What ultimately - will create benefits for authors and for consumers of content.
')
Summarizing.
It is extremely difficult to deal with publishers when we have only logic and common sense, and they have money and power. But if you build a system that creates an alternative to publishers, shows how untenable they are, inefficient and ossified, then you can “beat them on their own field.” You can deprive their authors, and therefore deprive money and the power to make decisions for us.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/194872/
All Articles