Discourse on the role of the state in the multimedia industry
Dear friends, today I would like to discuss with you the problem of copyright in the multimedia industry. I say a problem, because I really believe that there is a very big problem in this industry, and it's not just about piracy, in my opinion, the system itself has long been outdated and has lost its effectiveness.
So, to understand how this system operates today, you should refer to history.
')
The concept of copyright arose relatively recently, in England in 1710, then very often publishers could print any works at their discretion without any permission, thereby condemning the author and his family to a hungry existence (well, or at least from the activities of this he did not receive).
In order to promote culture to the masses, it was necessary to make it so that the author could earn his activities for his livelihood. Thus, the statute of Anna was adopted, which recognized the author’s exclusive right to his literary works for 14 years, with the possibility of extension. Years passed, the concept of copyright spread throughout the civilized world, with time, in addition to literary works, graphic works (1865) and musical works (1897) were added to it.
The 1886 international convention in Bern became very important for the development of copyright. It formulated the basic principles of copyright protection, which are valid, with minor modifications, to this day. The World Intellectual Property Organization ( WIPO ) appeared, and industrial technologies and inventive patents were included in the “list”.
As mentioned above, copyright, the law is sufficiently new and appeared as a result of the invention of the printing press in the middle of the 15th century. I would like to note that in spite of the fact that copyright is a fictio iure derivative of the right to private property, it is not a fundamental right . That is, this right was created artificially with the sole purpose: to raise the culture of society as a whole. This spirit of the era of enlightenment was preserved in modern international legal treaties.
If in the legal aspect the general principles were unchanged for three centuries, then in economic terms the situation has undergone great changes in recent years. From the beginning of the 20th century (in the case of literature much earlier), large enterprises-publishers usurped all means of distribution, creating an oligopoly on the market. If the author or the artist wanted to be heard, he had to play by the rules of the publishers, giving them a large share of the sales revenues, since the author himself could not afford the huge ( fixed ) costs of circulation, promotion and distribution. But the situation has changed significantly with the entrance to the digital era, now it would seem that these costs have decreased many times and many authors and musicians can afford to release their work bypassing publishers, but it was not so ... In the book and graphic sector, due to the huge the number of publishers the situation is not so bad, although it may be better. But in the music sector there are only a few labels that hold about 80% of the entire market of the music industry. These labels actively impede a change in the existing model in order to retain most of the $ 20 billion market .
Internet piracy has two grounds: First, it is the reluctance to pay, for what can be obtained for free. And second, this is the reluctance to spend your time and energy when you can not waste them (it is quite easier to download something than to go to the store for many kilometers and buy a disc that still needs to be converted to digital format for a player or media station). If the second can be fought by improving the structure, for example, by means of online stores like itunes, then you can’t do anything with the first one, it contradicts the structure as a whole.
Knowing that no adequate legislator ever criminalizes copyright infringement, if there was no animus lucrandi (thirst for profit), then labels begin to unite in organizations like the RIAA and file civil lawsuits against offenders, which in essence is a disregard of the law and has no support in society.
According to IFPI, the music market in Russia does not exceed $ 500 million (data for 2005). A possible solution can be taken at the state level, it is simply to abandon the labels, monopolizing most of the music distribution sector. I see it as follows: it is necessary to create a state media library with “passport” access, so any person who has reached, say, 12–14 years old can go in there and download any piece of music for free . Since access to the media library will be available on a unique ID, it is possible to create unbiased statistics of access to content.
Further, given that the music market is approximately $ 500 million (of which, according to IFPI, about 200 are legal and 300 are pirated), the State apparatus can allocate, say, $ 300-400 million and distribute them in accordance with the popularity of this or that author.
Positive sides
From a legal point of view, it’s positive that the author’s rights will not be violated. This decision does not contradict the international obligations of the Russian Federation.
From an economic point of view, there are direct subsidies to the authors, bypassing inefficient labels. There is a savings in the fight against piracy, as it is eradicated as such (in the music industry).
From a cultural point of view, the greatest benefits, music becomes publicly available (regardless of wealth, you can get access, you only need the Internet, which can be provided by libraries). Due to direct subsidies, a greater number of authors appear (earlier, the authors received 20-30% of revenue, now they receive it all). Due to the disappearance of the dependent music charts, the number of untalented, popular pops decreases - the quality increases ...
The basis for the conclusion of such agreements between the state and other holders of culture (writers, television channels, film studios) appears.
Negative sides
Perhaps someone will think that it is better to leave everything as it is and wait for the natural transformation of the market. Since, the state could spend this money on other activities (health care, education, army, subsidies and pensions ...). But here I can argue that according to IFPI, Russians spend about $ 200 million out of their own pocket for licensed music (the rest of the consumption is extracted in a pirated way), if the authors at best get 40-50 million of this amount, even when distributed to mention 200, the authors will win. And citizens' unspent money will be spent on other needs, which, thanks to economic multipliers, will reduce the loss of funds for the economy.
In addition, if such steps are not taken now, then in 5 years labels will adapt to market conditions (they will sell music at low prices via the Internet) and will push anti-piracy laws in the Duma through pressure groups. In this case, we will not get rid of them - the system will be more effective than it is now, but less effective and democratic than it could be. Culture will not be available to all sectors of society, and the authors will remain in slavery to the labels.
So, to understand how this system operates today, you should refer to history.
')
From the act of Anna to the Geneva Copyright Convention
The concept of copyright arose relatively recently, in England in 1710, then very often publishers could print any works at their discretion without any permission, thereby condemning the author and his family to a hungry existence (well, or at least from the activities of this he did not receive).
In order to promote culture to the masses, it was necessary to make it so that the author could earn his activities for his livelihood. Thus, the statute of Anna was adopted, which recognized the author’s exclusive right to his literary works for 14 years, with the possibility of extension. Years passed, the concept of copyright spread throughout the civilized world, with time, in addition to literary works, graphic works (1865) and musical works (1897) were added to it.
The 1886 international convention in Bern became very important for the development of copyright. It formulated the basic principles of copyright protection, which are valid, with minor modifications, to this day. The World Intellectual Property Organization ( WIPO ) appeared, and industrial technologies and inventive patents were included in the “list”.
As mentioned above, copyright, the law is sufficiently new and appeared as a result of the invention of the printing press in the middle of the 15th century. I would like to note that in spite of the fact that copyright is a fictio iure derivative of the right to private property, it is not a fundamental right . That is, this right was created artificially with the sole purpose: to raise the culture of society as a whole. This spirit of the era of enlightenment was preserved in modern international legal treaties.
Multimedia industry
If in the legal aspect the general principles were unchanged for three centuries, then in economic terms the situation has undergone great changes in recent years. From the beginning of the 20th century (in the case of literature much earlier), large enterprises-publishers usurped all means of distribution, creating an oligopoly on the market. If the author or the artist wanted to be heard, he had to play by the rules of the publishers, giving them a large share of the sales revenues, since the author himself could not afford the huge ( fixed ) costs of circulation, promotion and distribution. But the situation has changed significantly with the entrance to the digital era, now it would seem that these costs have decreased many times and many authors and musicians can afford to release their work bypassing publishers, but it was not so ... In the book and graphic sector, due to the huge the number of publishers the situation is not so bad, although it may be better. But in the music sector there are only a few labels that hold about 80% of the entire market of the music industry. These labels actively impede a change in the existing model in order to retain most of the $ 20 billion market .
Internet piracy has two grounds: First, it is the reluctance to pay, for what can be obtained for free. And second, this is the reluctance to spend your time and energy when you can not waste them (it is quite easier to download something than to go to the store for many kilometers and buy a disc that still needs to be converted to digital format for a player or media station). If the second can be fought by improving the structure, for example, by means of online stores like itunes, then you can’t do anything with the first one, it contradicts the structure as a whole.
Knowing that no adequate legislator ever criminalizes copyright infringement, if there was no animus lucrandi (thirst for profit), then labels begin to unite in organizations like the RIAA and file civil lawsuits against offenders, which in essence is a disregard of the law and has no support in society.
Possible Solution
According to IFPI, the music market in Russia does not exceed $ 500 million (data for 2005). A possible solution can be taken at the state level, it is simply to abandon the labels, monopolizing most of the music distribution sector. I see it as follows: it is necessary to create a state media library with “passport” access, so any person who has reached, say, 12–14 years old can go in there and download any piece of music for free . Since access to the media library will be available on a unique ID, it is possible to create unbiased statistics of access to content.
Further, given that the music market is approximately $ 500 million (of which, according to IFPI, about 200 are legal and 300 are pirated), the State apparatus can allocate, say, $ 300-400 million and distribute them in accordance with the popularity of this or that author.
Positive sides
From a legal point of view, it’s positive that the author’s rights will not be violated. This decision does not contradict the international obligations of the Russian Federation.
From an economic point of view, there are direct subsidies to the authors, bypassing inefficient labels. There is a savings in the fight against piracy, as it is eradicated as such (in the music industry).
From a cultural point of view, the greatest benefits, music becomes publicly available (regardless of wealth, you can get access, you only need the Internet, which can be provided by libraries). Due to direct subsidies, a greater number of authors appear (earlier, the authors received 20-30% of revenue, now they receive it all). Due to the disappearance of the dependent music charts, the number of untalented, popular pops decreases - the quality increases ...
The basis for the conclusion of such agreements between the state and other holders of culture (writers, television channels, film studios) appears.
Negative sides
Perhaps someone will think that it is better to leave everything as it is and wait for the natural transformation of the market. Since, the state could spend this money on other activities (health care, education, army, subsidies and pensions ...). But here I can argue that according to IFPI, Russians spend about $ 200 million out of their own pocket for licensed music (the rest of the consumption is extracted in a pirated way), if the authors at best get 40-50 million of this amount, even when distributed to mention 200, the authors will win. And citizens' unspent money will be spent on other needs, which, thanks to economic multipliers, will reduce the loss of funds for the economy.
In addition, if such steps are not taken now, then in 5 years labels will adapt to market conditions (they will sell music at low prices via the Internet) and will push anti-piracy laws in the Duma through pressure groups. In this case, we will not get rid of them - the system will be more effective than it is now, but less effective and democratic than it could be. Culture will not be available to all sectors of society, and the authors will remain in slavery to the labels.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/74651/
All Articles