One model of earnings for free and open information
The text considers a possible positive answer to the question of whether it is possible to directly earn money on the creation of new data (in the broad sense: music, books, software), and not with the help of donations, concerts, technical support and other related services. At the same time, the model is built under the conditions of copyright lawlessness, that is, the model is required to work in conditions where the author is not protected by any repressive mechanisms by the state.
The main characters of the tragicomedy playing out below are: The author, the User is a creature who wants to use the information created by the author, Publisher is a set of software and hardware tools that helps a group of authors publish information, collect money from users and track Freeloaders - life forms based on protein and silicon, seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of the information created by the authors.
')
First you need to determine what natural values the author carries. For example, the author’s right to indicate who has the right to copy the information he created, and who does not have, is an artificial value in our age of digital information technologies, which are basically the nature of copying. But the author has a set of qualities that only he possesses, and access to which the user has every reason to desire.
1. The author is the source of new information.
2. The author, better understanding the information created by him, can more quickly and efficiently produce information specialization for the user's needs, including using automated and user-accessible tools. Examples:
(1) A programmer can more efficiently optimize a program for a specific hardware architecture, even if he does this only by changing compilation keys, he has an advantage: compiled headers, a cluster for compilation (if he is a successful author), sets of necessary libraries, etc. . A user can get it all himself, but it will take him some time: many are switching from Gentoo Linux to something more compiled.
(2) A writer may issue books to a user in a different layout. Or, for example, with different levels of aggressive vocabulary.
(3) A musician can optimize sound files for playback through headphones or eight-channel professional speakers.
(4) The director may, at the request of the user, to issue videos in various resolutions. Or, for example, delete and include different scenes. And so on.
(five)…
3. The author can confirm the authenticity of the work, and is the only entity that can a priori indicate that a certain version is operable. Of course, any user can indicate this, having heard white noise when playing a file, but not the expected melody, or trying to compile a favorite media player and receiving at the same time hundreds of kilobytes of error messages, but this is already a posteriori.
The author can justifiably demand from the user remuneration for access to these objective and natural qualities. Based on this, the model is built.
A group of authors gathers, installs a publishing server and starts distributing access to users for money: a subscription fee, or a fee for authenticity guarantees - the meaning will become clear a little later - and, perhaps, an additional fee for specializing information for the user's needs. But the main function of the publisher is to confirm the authenticity and some guarantees of the quality of the information. Authenticity can be confirmed formally, and guarantees can be given using the standard formula: AS IS, that is, in an informal way: quality is guaranteed by the fact that certain authors are the source of information.
At the same time, the user’s verification of the authenticity of a piece of information and its performance should be done by querying the publisher’s server. The user can retrieve the data, wherever he pleases, count md5 from them, and send the request to the publisher. The publisher, if the user is its subscriber, or if it is possible to withdraw money from his account for one such check, sends him a signed message about whether this data block is authentic and workable.
After that a freeloader appears on the scene. He uses the publisher's server to download their works as a regular user, and then give them to all those who suffer for half the price. Generally speaking, even without much effort on the part of the authors, the service of the freeloader will be inferior to the service of the authors. For example, he is unlikely to cope with requests for specialization without investing in the infrastructure of his service, comparable to the investments of the authors. But even if the action takes place in a world where all users like to compile, re-encode and independently apply effects, the author's publishing house has the opportunity to defeat the freeloader and discipline afflicted users.
To do this, they need to publish information in small portions. For example, in the form of daily patches. It is quite possible for any kind of works, because patches can lead to unworkable versions of works. For example, musicians can regularly lay out various experimental versions of white noise, but be sure to mark them when inquiries from the user as inoperative. In addition, publishers should publish information in the most open and accessible format for modification. The main service they provide is proof of authenticity and efficiency, so they should be interested in creating an environment in which information changes easily, becomes infected with bookmarks, transcodes poorly, and so on and so forth. Naturally, they should release software in source codes, and books in TeX.
Signatures of accesses signed by honest users and freeloaders will naturally differ. A normal user is unlikely to show interest in authenticity and performance of all the content offered by the publisher in general. But the freeloader, in order to attract people to himself, must maintain a decent impression from the publisher's database. Otherwise, people will agree to pay twice as much for access to a richer source of information. (Retreat: or if the publisher is too greedy, then there will be other authors who are able to support this or that project for a more modest reward. And if they do not, then the authors of the publisher set a fair price for their services).
So, the halyafschik differs from other users in their behavior. It can be singled out and, for example, enter into a special contract with him if he is an honest corporate user. Or do nothing, relying on the system of remuneration from users: the more checks of efficiency and authenticity, the more expensive they are. Rising costs can be exponential, which will make the freeloader's business unprofitable.
If a publisher (it may be recalled that a publisher is a group of authors) charges a subscription fee for access to its services, it may use the poisoning method to combat the freeloader: some inoperable data blocks may be marked by the authors as workable for this user. Naturally, this should be non-critical data, but if the software is distributed as source codes, it is easy to do by introducing errors that do not allow the code to be compiled. If this is music, then the white noise of the 915 version may well fit.
Halyafschik can not send their users to check the correctness of publications on the server publisher-data source, because no one there to serve them without the appropriate payment will not. Therefore, he himself must perform for his users the guaranteeing functions of the publisher. He has to change the author's substitute data on information packets, change signatures, and so on. And all the tools for quick and easy substitution should be provided to him.
And after that, as it was said, poisoned, inoperable, but signed as workable, data blocks should be presented to it. Which he will distribute automatically (he cannot listen to hundreds of sound tracks and track compilation errors in hundreds of packages, of course not if he can - well done, but what will it cost?) Among his subscribers, completely discrediting himself.
Such is the basic scheme. There is a desire to hear criticism.
The main characters of the tragicomedy playing out below are: The author, the User is a creature who wants to use the information created by the author, Publisher is a set of software and hardware tools that helps a group of authors publish information, collect money from users and track Freeloaders - life forms based on protein and silicon, seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of the information created by the authors.
')
First you need to determine what natural values the author carries. For example, the author’s right to indicate who has the right to copy the information he created, and who does not have, is an artificial value in our age of digital information technologies, which are basically the nature of copying. But the author has a set of qualities that only he possesses, and access to which the user has every reason to desire.
1. The author is the source of new information.
2. The author, better understanding the information created by him, can more quickly and efficiently produce information specialization for the user's needs, including using automated and user-accessible tools. Examples:
(1) A programmer can more efficiently optimize a program for a specific hardware architecture, even if he does this only by changing compilation keys, he has an advantage: compiled headers, a cluster for compilation (if he is a successful author), sets of necessary libraries, etc. . A user can get it all himself, but it will take him some time: many are switching from Gentoo Linux to something more compiled.
(2) A writer may issue books to a user in a different layout. Or, for example, with different levels of aggressive vocabulary.
(3) A musician can optimize sound files for playback through headphones or eight-channel professional speakers.
(4) The director may, at the request of the user, to issue videos in various resolutions. Or, for example, delete and include different scenes. And so on.
(five)…
3. The author can confirm the authenticity of the work, and is the only entity that can a priori indicate that a certain version is operable. Of course, any user can indicate this, having heard white noise when playing a file, but not the expected melody, or trying to compile a favorite media player and receiving at the same time hundreds of kilobytes of error messages, but this is already a posteriori.
The author can justifiably demand from the user remuneration for access to these objective and natural qualities. Based on this, the model is built.
A group of authors gathers, installs a publishing server and starts distributing access to users for money: a subscription fee, or a fee for authenticity guarantees - the meaning will become clear a little later - and, perhaps, an additional fee for specializing information for the user's needs. But the main function of the publisher is to confirm the authenticity and some guarantees of the quality of the information. Authenticity can be confirmed formally, and guarantees can be given using the standard formula: AS IS, that is, in an informal way: quality is guaranteed by the fact that certain authors are the source of information.
At the same time, the user’s verification of the authenticity of a piece of information and its performance should be done by querying the publisher’s server. The user can retrieve the data, wherever he pleases, count md5 from them, and send the request to the publisher. The publisher, if the user is its subscriber, or if it is possible to withdraw money from his account for one such check, sends him a signed message about whether this data block is authentic and workable.
After that a freeloader appears on the scene. He uses the publisher's server to download their works as a regular user, and then give them to all those who suffer for half the price. Generally speaking, even without much effort on the part of the authors, the service of the freeloader will be inferior to the service of the authors. For example, he is unlikely to cope with requests for specialization without investing in the infrastructure of his service, comparable to the investments of the authors. But even if the action takes place in a world where all users like to compile, re-encode and independently apply effects, the author's publishing house has the opportunity to defeat the freeloader and discipline afflicted users.
To do this, they need to publish information in small portions. For example, in the form of daily patches. It is quite possible for any kind of works, because patches can lead to unworkable versions of works. For example, musicians can regularly lay out various experimental versions of white noise, but be sure to mark them when inquiries from the user as inoperative. In addition, publishers should publish information in the most open and accessible format for modification. The main service they provide is proof of authenticity and efficiency, so they should be interested in creating an environment in which information changes easily, becomes infected with bookmarks, transcodes poorly, and so on and so forth. Naturally, they should release software in source codes, and books in TeX.
Signatures of accesses signed by honest users and freeloaders will naturally differ. A normal user is unlikely to show interest in authenticity and performance of all the content offered by the publisher in general. But the freeloader, in order to attract people to himself, must maintain a decent impression from the publisher's database. Otherwise, people will agree to pay twice as much for access to a richer source of information. (Retreat: or if the publisher is too greedy, then there will be other authors who are able to support this or that project for a more modest reward. And if they do not, then the authors of the publisher set a fair price for their services).
So, the halyafschik differs from other users in their behavior. It can be singled out and, for example, enter into a special contract with him if he is an honest corporate user. Or do nothing, relying on the system of remuneration from users: the more checks of efficiency and authenticity, the more expensive they are. Rising costs can be exponential, which will make the freeloader's business unprofitable.
If a publisher (it may be recalled that a publisher is a group of authors) charges a subscription fee for access to its services, it may use the poisoning method to combat the freeloader: some inoperable data blocks may be marked by the authors as workable for this user. Naturally, this should be non-critical data, but if the software is distributed as source codes, it is easy to do by introducing errors that do not allow the code to be compiled. If this is music, then the white noise of the 915 version may well fit.
Halyafschik can not send their users to check the correctness of publications on the server publisher-data source, because no one there to serve them without the appropriate payment will not. Therefore, he himself must perform for his users the guaranteeing functions of the publisher. He has to change the author's substitute data on information packets, change signatures, and so on. And all the tools for quick and easy substitution should be provided to him.
And after that, as it was said, poisoned, inoperable, but signed as workable, data blocks should be presented to it. Which he will distribute automatically (he cannot listen to hundreds of sound tracks and track compilation errors in hundreds of packages, of course not if he can - well done, but what will it cost?) Among his subscribers, completely discrediting himself.
Such is the basic scheme. There is a desire to hear criticism.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/64119/
All Articles