Intellectual property and its future: my understanding
I decided to create this post, after reading the translation of the excellent article ““ Intellectual Property ”is a stupid euphemism . ” A lot of things seemed close to me, much interesting. But the main idea is that the only thing that cannot be taken away from a person (not counting absolutely brutal methods) is knowledge and information . Indeed, the song heard, the viewed film, the thought that came to mind, is already in the memory of a person , and the computer network, like a huge copying machine, will allow you to find this information if it becomes forgotten. Even your thoughts, which proves the existence of online diaries. And for other information there are torrents. =) The information does not become the property of the consumer, but already does not fully belong to the author.
Today, the conflict between the "owners" of any "intellectual property" and the consumer is as great as possible. The “Owner” justifiably wants to make a profit, reward , and the consumer wants to receive content quickly, simply and, if possible, cheaply . How to solve this problem with distribution, existing for many years? How to make a person pay not for a copy, but for the benefit brought by this information? I want to express my thoughts on this.
I myself play in a music group, write songs, write computer programs, make websites, participate in discussions, that is, create the very information . I am very pleased when my songs are listened to, given to friends, share emotions, when my programs help people, when my thoughts help someone to live. And it is through the creation of information that I would like to make a living. No, I don't need millions, yachts, islands. I just need a decent life, when I would understand that what matters to people is what I create, and they are ready to thank me. Ready to give your money. I can’t do anything more than create information, and I would like people to give me something if it was useful to them .
')
Today, corporations are trying to make information a product : a disk protected by a file. And I want consumers to receive not a disc, but a program, not a protected file, but music. The solution to this is a well-thought system of remuneration: when anyone can get information, and the one to whom it has come in handy will voluntarily pay. Approximately the same scheme as with the album Radiohead , distributed at an arbitrary price.
I post a movie I made, our group publishes a recorded album, the company releases the program to free access, for example, using a torrent system, and indicates the ability to quickly and easily thank me, or a group, or a company. If the information was useful, necessary, we make a profit.
The idea is not new, that is why I liked the idea of rewarding the authors of Habratopic, but it is important to understand that today it does not always work as expected.
What is the bottleneck in this scheme? What can not be guaranteed that people will pay. Most likely, this is due to the social “habit” of paying for “already received”. But it is possible to make all the conditions for stimulating remuneration: at the state level, improve the financial situation of everyone, come up with the most convenient remuneration system (for example, SMS). But the most important thing is to strive for, so that each person himself would like to pay , reward the author for the information he has made. To have a personal motivation for this. For this, society must be very mature.
This cannot be done in a revolutionary way: they tried to create a socialist society already in Russia, and people were not ready. Not ready, to the fact that everything is common. “ Everything in common ” meant “ everything is no one ’s.” IMHO, the revolution does not solve anything.
For a long time, the existence of such a scheme, in my opinion, was not possible, but now I see successful first experiments with the free distribution of music, video, open programs and very happy about it. The time has come. Napster did the trick. Development does not stop. More and more people are willing to thank the author voluntarily. I'm ready.
What else hinders the development of such a scheme? Companies that made money from distributing disks, not programs protected files, not music. Companies that distribute information carriers under the guise of herself. Intermediaries in the dissemination of information, which often take a larger percentage than the author receives. And they do not want to lose the gold mine, to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. The point is not to destroy such companies (oh, my favorite CDs), but to ensure that such a distribution scheme ceases to be the only correct one. Internet is here.
And also, the scheme proposed by me is unlikely to work if the author needs yachts, islands, Bentley and an apartment in Moscow ;-D
What to do to everyone , in my opinion?
Just understand that information can not be taken away and sell its copy. Understand that you can simply thank the author of money, praise, new idea. What is ready. What is it - the easiest, most honest and most beautiful way. Assure people in this. If you yourself can thank the author of free content - do it. In other cases, try to comply with the law, not stealing what is sold according to the standard scheme.
The task is not to boycott the right holders, but to support new distribution schemes, where possible.
The first step to the free exchange of information is made. That day, when the Internet was invented. The second is done by Radiohead, OpenSource developers. It is worth noting that the Internet today is probably the freest “thing” on earth. Control from above is minimal. However, this network did not become a place for depravity - people themselves, for their moral reasons, choose what and where to place.
Everything cited above is my personal opinion, and I will be pleased to discuss it with people who have their own on this issue. If I am wrong in something, then I certainly want to know what.
Related Links:
Earnings on replicating information are unlikely to have prospects ;
The trial of the YouTube site "threatens Internet freedom" ;
On the “free” album, Radiohead made millions ;
How Radiohead killed the record labels ;
Demand for shareware ;
Jamendo open music site (10,000 published albums) ;
Ransom (buyout) - a way to get information from the whole community ;
Get out of the Sakura group with free music ;
Distributed freely by Ilya Orlov's album "Year of the Dog . "
Suggest more =)
PS 2 of the theater of our city in the last season worked in the mode: the audience left at the exit as much as they want. Revenue was greater than with the standard ticketing scheme. But the carrier is not offered here, so this is a little different.
Today, the conflict between the "owners" of any "intellectual property" and the consumer is as great as possible. The “Owner” justifiably wants to make a profit, reward , and the consumer wants to receive content quickly, simply and, if possible, cheaply . How to solve this problem with distribution, existing for many years? How to make a person pay not for a copy, but for the benefit brought by this information? I want to express my thoughts on this.
I myself play in a music group, write songs, write computer programs, make websites, participate in discussions, that is, create the very information . I am very pleased when my songs are listened to, given to friends, share emotions, when my programs help people, when my thoughts help someone to live. And it is through the creation of information that I would like to make a living. No, I don't need millions, yachts, islands. I just need a decent life, when I would understand that what matters to people is what I create, and they are ready to thank me. Ready to give your money. I can’t do anything more than create information, and I would like people to give me something if it was useful to them .
')
Today, corporations are trying to make information a product : a disk protected by a file. And I want consumers to receive not a disc, but a program, not a protected file, but music. The solution to this is a well-thought system of remuneration: when anyone can get information, and the one to whom it has come in handy will voluntarily pay. Approximately the same scheme as with the album Radiohead , distributed at an arbitrary price.
I post a movie I made, our group publishes a recorded album, the company releases the program to free access, for example, using a torrent system, and indicates the ability to quickly and easily thank me, or a group, or a company. If the information was useful, necessary, we make a profit.
The idea is not new, that is why I liked the idea of rewarding the authors of Habratopic, but it is important to understand that today it does not always work as expected.
What is the bottleneck in this scheme? What can not be guaranteed that people will pay. Most likely, this is due to the social “habit” of paying for “already received”. But it is possible to make all the conditions for stimulating remuneration: at the state level, improve the financial situation of everyone, come up with the most convenient remuneration system (for example, SMS). But the most important thing is to strive for, so that each person himself would like to pay , reward the author for the information he has made. To have a personal motivation for this. For this, society must be very mature.
This cannot be done in a revolutionary way: they tried to create a socialist society already in Russia, and people were not ready. Not ready, to the fact that everything is common. “ Everything in common ” meant “ everything is no one ’s.” IMHO, the revolution does not solve anything.
For a long time, the existence of such a scheme, in my opinion, was not possible, but now I see successful first experiments with the free distribution of music, video, open programs and very happy about it. The time has come. Napster did the trick. Development does not stop. More and more people are willing to thank the author voluntarily. I'm ready.
What else hinders the development of such a scheme? Companies that made money from distributing disks, not programs protected files, not music. Companies that distribute information carriers under the guise of herself. Intermediaries in the dissemination of information, which often take a larger percentage than the author receives. And they do not want to lose the gold mine, to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. The point is not to destroy such companies (oh, my favorite CDs), but to ensure that such a distribution scheme ceases to be the only correct one. Internet is here.
And also, the scheme proposed by me is unlikely to work if the author needs yachts, islands, Bentley and an apartment in Moscow ;-D
What to do to everyone , in my opinion?
Just understand that information can not be taken away and sell its copy. Understand that you can simply thank the author of money, praise, new idea. What is ready. What is it - the easiest, most honest and most beautiful way. Assure people in this. If you yourself can thank the author of free content - do it. In other cases, try to comply with the law, not stealing what is sold according to the standard scheme.
The task is not to boycott the right holders, but to support new distribution schemes, where possible.
The first step to the free exchange of information is made. That day, when the Internet was invented. The second is done by Radiohead, OpenSource developers. It is worth noting that the Internet today is probably the freest “thing” on earth. Control from above is minimal. However, this network did not become a place for depravity - people themselves, for their moral reasons, choose what and where to place.
Everything cited above is my personal opinion, and I will be pleased to discuss it with people who have their own on this issue. If I am wrong in something, then I certainly want to know what.
Related Links:
Earnings on replicating information are unlikely to have prospects ;
The trial of the YouTube site "threatens Internet freedom" ;
On the “free” album, Radiohead made millions ;
How Radiohead killed the record labels ;
Demand for shareware ;
Jamendo open music site (10,000 published albums) ;
Ransom (buyout) - a way to get information from the whole community ;
Get out of the Sakura group with free music ;
Distributed freely by Ilya Orlov's album "Year of the Dog . "
Suggest more =)
PS 2 of the theater of our city in the last season worked in the mode: the audience left at the exit as much as they want. Revenue was greater than with the standard ticketing scheme. But the carrier is not offered here, so this is a little different.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/26306/
All Articles