Freedom of information

Once on a habre, I laid out a note with a proposal on how a compromise could be reached between rightholders and users . There was little feedback, and one that did not lead to significant changes in my concept.

Subsequently, I added some squeeze from this article to my book and thought that the issue was resolved.
However, after reading the report “Anarchomics” of the Copenhagen Institute for the Study of the Future and having discussed with one of the few readers of my book, I changed my opinion.
Now I think that copying should not be pursued by the state, the idea is certainly not new, but earlier it seemed to me insufficiently substantiated, and now, as it seems to me, I was able to convincingly convincingly enough of it.

The problem of digital goods in a fundamental difference between information and matter. For matter / energy there is a law of conservation - it cannot disappear to nowhere (it can only move or be transformed into another form) and cannot appear from nowhere. For information there is no such law - information may disappear and may appear, including through copying. Initially, mankind operated only with material goods and all the rules were formulated on the basis of their properties. For example, if you took a thing from someone without a demand, then he was deprived of the opportunity to dispose of his property, such an action is called theft and is condemned as a crime. The cost of the exchange of things is closely related to the cost of its production, of course, the price can be very different from the cost, but if it does not pay back, then it will stop producing, and if it is too high, then it will stop buying, therefore the price is close to the cost in a competitive market. There are, of course, fixed costs unrelated to the production of a specific instance - common to the entire production, but such expenses are smeared on all products based on the planned production volume (you can’t sell more goods than you made, which means there is no profit out of nothing), and the sale is not all goods - this is a loss in any case (regardless of whether it is a material or information product).

There are two approaches to information products. In the first approach, the information product is equal to the material, i.e. copying is considered to be theft, and the price is usually determined on the basis of how much you are willing to pay (if there is a threat of punishment for copying), so much we ask. This approach is common now and has certain problems:
')

1. Once the information is copied, it is not clear why this can be considered a theft, because by copying the information, we leave the owner with exactly the same information that he had before, we didn’t take anything from him. The classification of copying as theft leads to the emergence of strict legislation that contradicts the laws of the Universe; this is counterproductive; other solutions must be sought. Indeed, despite the constant tightening of punishments, piracy remains a mass phenomenon, apparently because sapiens understands that by sharing a copy, he does not lose anything, that information is not the same thing as matter. If the law is not fulfilled by the majority of the population, then there is a chance that something is wrong with the law. Although, of course, efforts were made to create information and somehow it was necessary to compensate them for the creator, but this does not mean that copying is a theft.
   
   
2. It is not clear how to determine the cost of information, because the cost of copying, due to the development of technology, tends to zero, the number of copies cannot be determined in advance, which means it is unclear what percentage of the cost of creating information needs to be included in the price of the copy. This also implies a problem with the assessment of damage from copying, moreover, the price cannot be determined, so the under-received profit used in such cases is virtual enough - what a person took for free does not guarantee that he would buy it, it is quite possible that he would refused the goods considering the price inappropriate. In principle, it is possible to propose a scheme in which the costs of creating goods are distributed between the N copies planned for sale, and if N + 1 copy is sold, the costs are recalculated for N + 1 copy and the overpayment is returned to the first N buyers, however this scheme is difficult administration (you need to keep records of all customers, return them very small amounts, etc.) and can lead to frauds with the cost price (manufacturers will overestimate it as much as possible). Well, it is not clear how to calculate N, for example, when N = 1, the first buyer must compensate all the costs of production, and then return something to him if there are other buyers.
   
   
3. The approach leads to monopolization. Because most often the content is unique, you cannot buy the same film from another producer or the same song, even the software is often made so that it is difficult to replace it (although the government must fight it to develop competition), and if there is no competition, then a monopoly is obtained, and a monopoly is overpriced and low quality. For example, now manufacturers are not thinking about the convenience of users, but about copy protection. Plus, the inflated price and the sale of worthless copies make it possible to get super-profits and invest them in strengthening their monopoly position - buying up competitors, lobbying laws, etc. For an example of such monopolization, we can consider why the production of conditional Hollywood films is so expensive. Maybe because the actors get astronomical salaries, while, judging by the unsuccessful doubles, the actors are not very good, but instead of working, they laugh merrily there? It may well be that the poor actors of the local theater are more professional, they just are not lucky in a place, time, appearance or something else. Or maybe because the shooting is done by large corporations that are inefficient, have bloated staff? Or because they spend a lot of money on advertising. without advertising their films will not be needed by anyone and will not sell anything? Or because they spend a lot of money on privacy and copy protection? Or maybe the cost of films includes the cost of lobbying the right holders of laws around the world? In this case, it cannot be said that these expensive films are made qualitatively, yes, special effects are usually good, but the plot is often ill-conceived and / or does not differ in novelty.
   
   
4. The approach leads to incomes that have little to do with the efforts and quality of the goods, for example, you can create one work and earn income all your life without producing anything, and the amount of income depends heavily on fame, in which case plays a big role (it’s not enough to be a good musician to be in a handful of those that most listeners know about). Of course, from an egoistic point of view, this is good - once I have worked hard and earned income all my life, but we are talking about the structure of society, but from the point of view of society it is useful for everyone to continue working, that is, earned income for labor, and not for worthless copying their labor. Moreover, producers of material goods just receive payment for labor and are entitled to expect that information producers will be in similar conditions on the basis of the principle of equality before the law. It turns out that in the case of an information product, one has to pay not for the product itself, but for its use. If you transfer this logic to tangible goods, it turns out that you need to pay the worker more than once, for example, to create a bench in a public place, and every time a new person decided to sit on it. And so on as long as people use this bench. Since we consider information products as similar to material goods, then we need to have common rules. In theory, this can be done, but there are certain problems with such an economic model. Firstly, it is not clear what we are paying for; it turns out that the payment is not for the creation of a bench, not for its maintenance (this is separate, if required), but for the right to sit on it. Secondly, the administration becomes more complicated - it is necessary to take into account who sits on the bench, uses the cistern in the toilet and so on. Thirdly, there is a problem with pricing, described in the previous paragraph.
   
   
5. If we equate an information product to a material one, then we must also apply other requirements to the goods, for example, quality assurance. When buying a material product, I can inspect it and assess how good it is for me, besides that I know that the product has a warranty period and that the product will definitely perform its function during this period, and the manufacturer will at his own expense correct the faults if they occur. All this is difficult to apply to information products - if the product is entertaining, then the quality criteria are subjective, therefore it is difficult to guarantee anything, but then it is not clear whether it is possible to demand payment if nothing can be guaranteed. Suppose the film turns out to be uninteresting, it turns out you have wasted your precious time in your life? Will you get money back for him? Wasted time paid in accordance with the cost of your hour? Maybe even moral damage compensated for the disorder? In non-entertainment information products (for example, software) there are objective quality criteria, but in fact all software is sold as it is, without quality assurance and even applicability for some purposes, since in order to guarantee quality, the development approach must be completely changed, and if not quality assurance, is it worth paying? Maybe you need to pay for support, for service, in short for work, and not for a copy of the program?

The advantages of the first approach are the possibility for producers to earn well (although only those who are at the top of fame, that is, become a monopolist) can really earn well and the dependence of payment on demand for an information product (while it is used and paid for that it is useful), although this is a controversial advantage.

The second approach is based on the fact that copying information is not a crime, it is not detrimental because nothing takes away. After all, if the information already exists, it means that someone has already paid for its creation, and copying does not cost anything, there is nothing to pay for, you need to pay for the creation of new information or real services (such as a live performance of a singer), i.e. for work, for the effort, energy. The disadvantages of this approach include what the previous approach called pros: the opportunity to earn (more on this below) and the dependence of pay on utility (the bench example shows that this is not the best way). It is necessary to give explanations about the possibility of earning information products - many believe that if copying ceases to be a crime, the creators of information products will not be able to earn and stop creating them, of course this is not so. First, you need to understand that the lack of penalties for copying does not mean that all information is free, does not mean a ban on copy protection technologies, does not mean a ban on nondisclosure agreements and non-distribution (real contracts, and not a tick in the product). In addition, there are many people who know how to get pirated software, but buying it from the manufacturer, there can be many reasons - the desire to support the manufacturer, mistrust of extraneous copies, etc. Secondly, because There are several ways to create an information product, you need to consider each of them separately.

1. Development just for fun - does not require a ban on copying.
   
   
2. Development to order - if someone really needs some information product, he will order and pay for it. Yes, there will be a risk that competitors will receive a copy for free, but he will have a head start, and competitors in any case will make the same functionality. Another way is not afraid of competitors is to use solutions licensed under licenses like the GPL, the example of Linux is indicative - competitors are cooperating quite successfully.
   
   
3. Crowdfunding is an option to develop to order, there are only a lot of customers, which allows them to get the product significantly cheaper. This model also does not require penalties for copying, so will those who then use the product for free, but we assume that since they were not willing to pay for it, then they did not need it much (see here *).
   
   
4. Investments - can be both personal and external, it is important that the content creator has the opportunity to devote his time to creating the product. The absence of a ban on copying can reduce the level of investment in the development of new information products, but not the fact that this is a problem, informational goods that are really needed will be created one way or another, and the creation of the next clone of a well-known product in the hope of earning is not very valuable. Perhaps society will only benefit from this - those who have money will no longer litter the information market with their typical, but high-budget products, and real creators will have a chance to become famous and earn something. In essence, investing in development turns into marketing investment — by releasing a product, the author advertises himself and his services associated with this product.

In other words, if the author of a work does not receive, thanks to him, any opportunities to earn (donations, live performances, new orders, etc.), then this can be considered a sign of the low value of his work, indeed in the material world, if you created an unnecessary item, you will get a loss. Those. the measure of value, the need for a product is not its consumption / use, but the willingness to voluntarily pay for it and its development, to order something from the author.

As we see, both decisions have pros and cons - there is no perfect solution, but a decision needs to be made and the second option looks more rational.

With patents, the question is separate because if you invented something fundamentally new, and someone took advantage of it for earnings, then it is logical that you have the right to a share of this earnings, but the optimal patenting scheme is not yet clear to me.