Not sold inspiration, but you can sell the manuscript
Here are some thoughts on intellectual property.
We live in a new time, when a huge amount of products has zero production cost, and high development cost.
Going from 0 to 1 requires huge resources. The transition from 1 to 2 is free.
The question is who will pay the transition from 0 to 1 - remains open.
')
At one time, Pushkin made serious efforts to prove the rights to a fee for his works. "Not for sale inspiration. But you can sell the manuscript."
It was not accepted to print books at one’s own expense, and even to pay the author for inspiration. "There is nothing cheaper than the work already done."
Probably, humanity has yet to invent tools to protect both creators and consumers of content.
Looking forward to a better future for all of us.
Most of the participants do not have any intellectual property, and as a result they do not see any need to protect the content.
Most of the profits from the content get its distributors, regardless of whether it is free or paid. However, free content solves two major problems of information intermediaries at once: there is no need to take into account the rights of content producers, it is not necessary to indemnify end-users in case of not provided services.
The sale of free content (for example, through advertising or through the sale of traffic) does not require the cost of acquiring content or agreements with rights holders. And this is also a very serious argument in favor of free distribution.
The interests of content creators are additional costs.
Any attempt to protect content is a violation of the rights and opportunities of consumers of content.
That is why the pirate ecosystem is more efficient from the point of view of consumers and information intermediaries.
If you are a parasite on Hollywood films - forget about your own movies and culture.
It makes no sense to invest in the production of content, if nobody recognizes your ownership.
In other words:
1) The pirate ecosystem is just an ecosystem of parasites. The initial content produces a completely different ecosystem, in which pirates are not included.
2) In the competition between pirates and creators, the pirates win as they are more mobile and efficient.
3) It makes no sense to comply with the terms of the owners, if there is a way to ignore them.
In turn, content owners are constantly trying to implement all sorts of interesting options to reduce the rights to content consumption. For example, the rights to a one-time reproduction in a limited circle of persons in a particular region. Which in turn devalues the right to consume content, making it questionable. "Than to beg and beg - it is better to be ashamed and silent."
On the other hand, it is very difficult to come to an agreement with content owners and those who protect it.
Derivative content - the translator will not be able to realize his translation of the film, if he could not agree with the copyright holders of this film.
Co-ownership - leads to conflicts between the owners, as a result of which content development can be completely stopped. What if he has already become part of world history, giving rise to a lot of expectations for a continuation?
Distribution channels - most users will lose any chance of getting content, simply because the copyright holder did not use ALL distribution channels: for example, releasing movies only in English and only in America, only via cable channels.
Cultural links - constant quoting and sending to content that users cannot access. This will give rise to a differentiation (of pants) in society, and hence social tension.
In general, the owner of classic content begins to lay claim not only to his property, but also to someone else's, which somehow uses its content. What if this is a whole cultural stratum that has become hostage to the goodwill of a single rightholder?
Unintentional or unknowingly infringement of rights - the end user simply does not have enough knowledge to understand exactly where he begins to violate the conditions for using the content.
We live in a new time, when a huge amount of products has zero production cost, and high development cost.
Going from 0 to 1 requires huge resources. The transition from 1 to 2 is free.
The question is who will pay the transition from 0 to 1 - remains open.
')
At one time, Pushkin made serious efforts to prove the rights to a fee for his works. "Not for sale inspiration. But you can sell the manuscript."
It was not accepted to print books at one’s own expense, and even to pay the author for inspiration. "There is nothing cheaper than the work already done."
Probably, humanity has yet to invent tools to protect both creators and consumers of content.
Looking forward to a better future for all of us.
Pirate Ecosystem
Most of the participants do not have any intellectual property, and as a result they do not see any need to protect the content.
Most of the profits from the content get its distributors, regardless of whether it is free or paid. However, free content solves two major problems of information intermediaries at once: there is no need to take into account the rights of content producers, it is not necessary to indemnify end-users in case of not provided services.
The sale of free content (for example, through advertising or through the sale of traffic) does not require the cost of acquiring content or agreements with rights holders. And this is also a very serious argument in favor of free distribution.
The interests of content creators are additional costs.
Any attempt to protect content is a violation of the rights and opportunities of consumers of content.
That is why the pirate ecosystem is more efficient from the point of view of consumers and information intermediaries.
If you are a parasite on Hollywood films - forget about your own movies and culture.
It makes no sense to invest in the production of content, if nobody recognizes your ownership.
In other words:
1) The pirate ecosystem is just an ecosystem of parasites. The initial content produces a completely different ecosystem, in which pirates are not included.
2) In the competition between pirates and creators, the pirates win as they are more mobile and efficient.
3) It makes no sense to comply with the terms of the owners, if there is a way to ignore them.
Monopoly holders
In turn, content owners are constantly trying to implement all sorts of interesting options to reduce the rights to content consumption. For example, the rights to a one-time reproduction in a limited circle of persons in a particular region. Which in turn devalues the right to consume content, making it questionable. "Than to beg and beg - it is better to be ashamed and silent."
On the other hand, it is very difficult to come to an agreement with content owners and those who protect it.
Derivative content - the translator will not be able to realize his translation of the film, if he could not agree with the copyright holders of this film.
Co-ownership - leads to conflicts between the owners, as a result of which content development can be completely stopped. What if he has already become part of world history, giving rise to a lot of expectations for a continuation?
Distribution channels - most users will lose any chance of getting content, simply because the copyright holder did not use ALL distribution channels: for example, releasing movies only in English and only in America, only via cable channels.
Cultural links - constant quoting and sending to content that users cannot access. This will give rise to a differentiation (of pants) in society, and hence social tension.
In general, the owner of classic content begins to lay claim not only to his property, but also to someone else's, which somehow uses its content. What if this is a whole cultural stratum that has become hostage to the goodwill of a single rightholder?
Unintentional or unknowingly infringement of rights - the end user simply does not have enough knowledge to understand exactly where he begins to violate the conditions for using the content.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/194934/
All Articles