Everyone who wrote his new brilliant creation at night or simply copied his new post on Habré, at least the thought of copyright or copyright is at the edge of the subconscious. But there is an opinion that copyright has become a powerful weight in the development of the Web. For those who have never heard of such a concept at all, I remind you that copyright or copyright for minor variations in different countries includes the author’s exclusive rights to:

• replication and distribution of the author's work on any type of media;
• creating derivative works, such as translations or modifications;
• public performance, display or message of the author's work.

In this, basically, is the copyright (if I blundered in something wrong, then lawyers will correct me). From the closest examination of these rules, it is clear that they arose as a result of an attempt to transfer the property rights to ordinary things to copyright works. It does not take into account the fact that the author's work is primarily ideas that bind to their media, to put it mildly, is meaningless. As a result, all copyright laws are rife with various curtsies designed to reconcile them (these laws) with reality. It comes to the point of absurdity: for example, in the Russian legislation (I don’t know how in others) there is a right to communicate to the general information that outlaws all annotated links, but there are also a number of exceptions that put practical use of this type of law into question. This absurd situation has become even more aggravated with the advent of the virtualization of ideas, that is, when the need for their carrier disappears, and it becomes more and more difficult to record the facts of modification and reproduction of work. Thus, obviously, the necessity of revising the existing copyright has come.

Pro

What do we, as authors, want from our copyright? First of all, of course, we want recognition by the society of our greatness as Creators. Let it be a lifetime monument, even from bronze, not from gold, and not at the All-Russia Exhibition Center, but under Bobruisk, but with a small memorial museum. It is this motive that underlies the current development of Web 2.0. Secondly, I want material benefits, a lot at once. How much exactly? It depends on the author: from a beer box to the Bahamas archipelago. It should be noted that in achieving this, in general, sound goal, the author immediately faces a number of problems that he is trying to solve with varying success:

• The problem of the spread of his brilliant work. It is necessary to unfasten a large and better part of their future fee of various kinds to manufacturers, distribution networks, and so on.
• The problem of maximum extraction of the entire Cymes from their work. We have to spend on advertising, inventing schemes for the distribution of work in parts, pumping up hype around it and squeezing all the juices out of each stage. For example, video producers are coming.
• The problem of protecting our work from attempts to reduce the flow of our material goods. We spend on all kinds of protection against copying, reproduction and, of course, lawyers.

Contra

It's not hard to see that the virtualization of ideas in the Web space brings to naught most of the indicated problems:

• With the development of Web 2.0 technologies, the barrier to entry into the author’s market has decreased to a negligible amount, and with the development of technology rankings, ratings, and user classification by psycho types and social preferences, the effectiveness of this model of authoring will increase. At the same time, there remains little space for different intermediaries, and the ability to push through the masses of overtly weak works, due to advertising and public relations, is significantly reduced.
• In the near foreseeable future, there is no possibility to create any kind of effective protection against copying and distribution, and the development of peer-to-peer technologies and encryption negates the attempts of legal and legal suppression of these processes. Thus, the author and his promoters lose the ability to manage the process of squeezing profits on the web.

The only way to solve these contradictions is to find a compromise between the goals of authors and consumers of original products. What do we as users want from the authors ?:

• The author should as quickly as possible and to the fullest extent and quality to ensure the dissemination of his ideas (works) on the web. If the author did not do this, and the idea is in demand, then the efforts of other people to spread it will be completely justified.
• The author himself must either provide derivative works (for example, translations) to all those interested, or immediately delegate this duty to other people, otherwise this right is transferred to any interested person.
• The author should provide an opportunity for us, as users, to modify the work in order to eliminate errors, introduce new features, ideas, etc. into it.

It is characteristic that these theses have already been implemented in the open-source, peer-to-peer networks and Wiki, while completely ignoring the authors' material needs.

Clausula

It is obvious that these contradictions between the needs of authors and consumers are not solved either in the framework of Web 1.0 or Web 2.0. Consequently, their solution should be implemented on the basis of next-generation Web models. Let's call them Web 3.0. How should these contradictions be resolved in Web 3.0?

• Web 3.0 should enable the author to distribute his work as quickly as possible with minimal costs in any format convenient to the user with guaranteed receipt of royalties.
• The author fully conveys the right to bring to the notice of all the features of his idea (guarantee of the work of the distribution mechanism and ratings).
• Given that the author is a kind of monopolist of the idea, Web 3.0 should provide a mechanism for limiting the maximum rate of remuneration.
• Web 3.0 should have mechanisms for isolating the modified works and paying the authors of the original part of the remuneration from their use.

These requirements, although they seem fantastic, may well be implemented at a modern technical level, though only within the framework of the Web 3.0 itself. Some of them even draw some features of the Web 3.0 device:

• it should be a distributed peering network;
• mechanisms for the distribution of remuneration and rating maintenance should be provided by open-ended robots;
• the mechanism for isolating modified works should in the simplest cases be provided by robots, and more complex ones should be decided by the opinion of the representative committee of network users (you wanted democracy - I have them).

In any case, further intelligible development of the Network without solving the raised questions about copyright is not possible, and those who are the first to find their mutual solution will receive decisive advantages in the development of their projects.
Basil naivel

Ps. There is a proposal to organize a collective blog under the title “Technical Assignment”, in which everyone can express their thoughts on how the Network, programs, computers, etc. should be arranged, and formulate their requirements for them.