Copyright and some porn
The basis of the thesis of protecting the traditional system of copyright is the postulate that if you let everyone steal everything, then the films will not be made, the music will sound, and the poems will be written. Deprived of the protection of the state apparatus, the flow of intellectual products will dry up, leaving humanity to languish on the sidelines of progress.
The pictures, drawn in ordinary plots about intellectual piracy, widely exploit the image of a hungry poet who cannot receive adequate remuneration for his work and talent. This image is incredibly emotionally strong, especially given the fact that this position is taken not only by representatives of the right holders (major labels and corporations), who can not be caught in insufficient nutrition, but also by real authors and artists. And they have proved their right to their talent.
However, I believe that this point of view is erroneous. By the way, many supporters of reforming the copyright system think so. Therefore, I will not give all the theoretical arguments on this subject, but I will try to prove the fallacy of the position of a classic copyright with an example.
')
And this example is in the word, because of which (let's be honest) many people have opened this post, - porn. We will not pay attention to the legality and morality of this content. We isolate (I specifically chose this particular word) only part of the monetization of an intangible asset. In the end, porn is exactly the same audiovisual work as any clip or movie. And in the case of some clips, confusion can occur even by semantic content.
Analysis of some aspects of the monetization of this specific content allows to reveal the nuances of the development of modern copyright.
Firstly, the porn industry is booming. There are billions spinning around. In this case, porn is not protected by law as hard as other content. The industry was able to accumulate huge cash flows without putting someone in prison for 5 years for illegally using Sasha Gray's photo in her demotivator. It would be a mistake to say that all this money is illegal, like drug traffic. I think that with the exclusion from the statistics of obviously and absolutely illegal content, such as real violence or with the participation of minors, the amount of money in the industry will be enormous: chaste Wikipedia indicates that the figures are in the region of 10 billion dollars annually. This is more than the industry of sports and music combined.
Has anyone heard of a porn starving director?
But seriously, the reason, in my opinion, is that, deprived of state support, the industry was forced to build relations with the market on a parity basis. This led to the fact that:
(a) there is a huge amount of free content, which earns thanks to an advertising model or serves as a lure to paid content;
(b) along with an advertising subscription model is widely distributed;
(c) the price of content is significantly lower than in the media industry. It’s often more expensive to download a song or buy a movie than to get a monthly subscription to some indecent resource (I don’t understand how morals advocates overlooked it);
(d) a significant amount of content in a short time passes from the category of paid to free (language does not turn to call it public domain), replaced by new products.
All these trends can now be seen in classic copyright, but they are seriously slowed by the Dutch copyright disease. The essence of this disease is in the corruption and weakening of the economy at the expense of cheap and excess resources. In this case, such a resource is state support.
The police and the courts guarding the classical media industry play the role of a temporary dam for urgent changes. All the power of a huge army of lobbyists, lawyers and officials focuses on the possibility of ensuring the obviously archaic right of the copyright holder to forbid someone to listen to his music / sing his songs or watch his films if the user does not agree to the conditions put forward by the copyright holder. In other words, there is a struggle for the right of rightholders not to listen to the market. But the trick is that the more the right holder will rely on the state, the sooner it will face a fiasco in the market.
Copyright holders should learn from porn. Not literally, but with respect to the survival of the industry and pumping money out of the consumer. Either copyright holders will follow the examples of the porn industry in terms of content monetization, or they will have to financially constantly feel like its actors.
The pictures, drawn in ordinary plots about intellectual piracy, widely exploit the image of a hungry poet who cannot receive adequate remuneration for his work and talent. This image is incredibly emotionally strong, especially given the fact that this position is taken not only by representatives of the right holders (major labels and corporations), who can not be caught in insufficient nutrition, but also by real authors and artists. And they have proved their right to their talent.
However, I believe that this point of view is erroneous. By the way, many supporters of reforming the copyright system think so. Therefore, I will not give all the theoretical arguments on this subject, but I will try to prove the fallacy of the position of a classic copyright with an example.
')
And this example is in the word, because of which (let's be honest) many people have opened this post, - porn. We will not pay attention to the legality and morality of this content. We isolate (I specifically chose this particular word) only part of the monetization of an intangible asset. In the end, porn is exactly the same audiovisual work as any clip or movie. And in the case of some clips, confusion can occur even by semantic content.
Analysis of some aspects of the monetization of this specific content allows to reveal the nuances of the development of modern copyright.
Firstly, the porn industry is booming. There are billions spinning around. In this case, porn is not protected by law as hard as other content. The industry was able to accumulate huge cash flows without putting someone in prison for 5 years for illegally using Sasha Gray's photo in her demotivator. It would be a mistake to say that all this money is illegal, like drug traffic. I think that with the exclusion from the statistics of obviously and absolutely illegal content, such as real violence or with the participation of minors, the amount of money in the industry will be enormous: chaste Wikipedia indicates that the figures are in the region of 10 billion dollars annually. This is more than the industry of sports and music combined.
Has anyone heard of a porn starving director?
But seriously, the reason, in my opinion, is that, deprived of state support, the industry was forced to build relations with the market on a parity basis. This led to the fact that:
(a) there is a huge amount of free content, which earns thanks to an advertising model or serves as a lure to paid content;
(b) along with an advertising subscription model is widely distributed;
(c) the price of content is significantly lower than in the media industry. It’s often more expensive to download a song or buy a movie than to get a monthly subscription to some indecent resource (I don’t understand how morals advocates overlooked it);
(d) a significant amount of content in a short time passes from the category of paid to free (language does not turn to call it public domain), replaced by new products.
All these trends can now be seen in classic copyright, but they are seriously slowed by the Dutch copyright disease. The essence of this disease is in the corruption and weakening of the economy at the expense of cheap and excess resources. In this case, such a resource is state support.
The police and the courts guarding the classical media industry play the role of a temporary dam for urgent changes. All the power of a huge army of lobbyists, lawyers and officials focuses on the possibility of ensuring the obviously archaic right of the copyright holder to forbid someone to listen to his music / sing his songs or watch his films if the user does not agree to the conditions put forward by the copyright holder. In other words, there is a struggle for the right of rightholders not to listen to the market. But the trick is that the more the right holder will rely on the state, the sooner it will face a fiasco in the market.
Copyright holders should learn from porn. Not literally, but with respect to the survival of the industry and pumping money out of the consumer. Either copyright holders will follow the examples of the porn industry in terms of content monetization, or they will have to financially constantly feel like its actors.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/228675/
All Articles