Looking to the future: a possible way to combat Internet piracy through social security of citizens the right to free download of works
I recently thought about the essence of piracy on the web. We all know about negative factors.
But there is an important positive: art becomes the property of the masses. After all, not everyone can afford to buy everything that he listens and looks. And I speak first of all about young people of 14-22 years. Remember yourself. How much music we started to listen to at the age of transition. Liked one group, and already pulls behind this genre. And how could a simple 16-year-old young man get so much money to buy music? Not to mention movies, games and more. Enough to go to the movies, sit in a cafe.
Here, piracy is morally justified - it performs a social function.
About adults - a few separate conversation. Everyone has a job, most of them watch and listen to the new not so much. Mostly. And they could afford to pay for the discs. On this, we deny adults - otherwise we will launch another holy war.
')
Now I will propose a hypothetical model that is impossible with a modern information infrastructure. So, it is necessary for the state to knock out the socially significant factor of pirates - bringing the culture to the masses of those who cannot afford it (the youth).
The state can start distributing some grants to parents or directly to young people (will be included in the social expenditures of budgets), so that young people, choosing and downloading music / movies, give them to performers / publishers. Those, in turn, will receive money from the state for this. Creators get money, there is competition among them - the engine of progress.
This is unlikely to drastically reduce the attendance of p2p portals. However, this will deprive them of the social component for which they must exist at the moment. On the other hand, it may teach people with a transition to a mature age to pay for what they download. At the same time, the state does not actually limit people. You can distribute these grants progressively (by the end of the institute, gradually reduce their number), to various social groups (the future is not the same: the unemployed gets the right to download 3 music albums, 2 films, for example). And this will deprive the pirates of a noble halo. At least in part.
Still, if the creators of the works begin to receive “social” money (and the money does not smell), then this will lead to an overall decrease in the cost of their products. That will also hit the pirates.
All this of course is interesting, but what do you need for such a scheme to earn? There are young people in whose lives the Internet is integrated at a sufficient level. It remains:
1. Universal Internet access. The first swallow is Finland. Now there the Internet is the right of the citizen.
2. Sites. The only fundamental difference from the usual p2p-portals is that the identification will be made. This is a separate and controversial question - is it possible for the state to give such power over the Internet. How to implement this scheme without the state’s access to privacy, so that it is a simple viable structure.
3. Actually, the state initiative. In general, it is beneficial for the state to carry out such a law: the development of culture is important. If you do not rest against the forehead on protectionism, as with the benefits of car loans. In the global world - that's the thing.
4. Implementation. To organize, to convey to the public, to train.
That such a thought has come. How do you like her?
UPD Gentlemen, who are minus, if possible, write your criticism. I just learn and it is important to me for development.
But there is an important positive: art becomes the property of the masses. After all, not everyone can afford to buy everything that he listens and looks. And I speak first of all about young people of 14-22 years. Remember yourself. How much music we started to listen to at the age of transition. Liked one group, and already pulls behind this genre. And how could a simple 16-year-old young man get so much money to buy music? Not to mention movies, games and more. Enough to go to the movies, sit in a cafe.
Here, piracy is morally justified - it performs a social function.
About adults - a few separate conversation. Everyone has a job, most of them watch and listen to the new not so much. Mostly. And they could afford to pay for the discs. On this, we deny adults - otherwise we will launch another holy war.
')
Now I will propose a hypothetical model that is impossible with a modern information infrastructure. So, it is necessary for the state to knock out the socially significant factor of pirates - bringing the culture to the masses of those who cannot afford it (the youth).
The state can start distributing some grants to parents or directly to young people (will be included in the social expenditures of budgets), so that young people, choosing and downloading music / movies, give them to performers / publishers. Those, in turn, will receive money from the state for this. Creators get money, there is competition among them - the engine of progress.
This is unlikely to drastically reduce the attendance of p2p portals. However, this will deprive them of the social component for which they must exist at the moment. On the other hand, it may teach people with a transition to a mature age to pay for what they download. At the same time, the state does not actually limit people. You can distribute these grants progressively (by the end of the institute, gradually reduce their number), to various social groups (the future is not the same: the unemployed gets the right to download 3 music albums, 2 films, for example). And this will deprive the pirates of a noble halo. At least in part.
Still, if the creators of the works begin to receive “social” money (and the money does not smell), then this will lead to an overall decrease in the cost of their products. That will also hit the pirates.
All this of course is interesting, but what do you need for such a scheme to earn? There are young people in whose lives the Internet is integrated at a sufficient level. It remains:
1. Universal Internet access. The first swallow is Finland. Now there the Internet is the right of the citizen.
2. Sites. The only fundamental difference from the usual p2p-portals is that the identification will be made. This is a separate and controversial question - is it possible for the state to give such power over the Internet. How to implement this scheme without the state’s access to privacy, so that it is a simple viable structure.
3. Actually, the state initiative. In general, it is beneficial for the state to carry out such a law: the development of culture is important. If you do not rest against the forehead on protectionism, as with the benefits of car loans. In the global world - that's the thing.
4. Implementation. To organize, to convey to the public, to train.
That such a thought has come. How do you like her?
UPD Gentlemen, who are minus, if possible, write your criticism. I just learn and it is important to me for development.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/72701/
All Articles