Three Copyright Issues
Based on the previous article .
Numerous (anti) copyright disputes on Habré (and not only on it) occur, usually, in the same way: on the one hand, “content producers” who will starve without copyright; on the other hand, ordinary users who are not going to pay evil labels for the product they produce. The first is called the second criminals, the second just as zealously argue that copying is not theft.
Meanwhile, there is a regrettable misunderstanding on both sides of the fact that they argue about different problems, which, although interrelated, are different:
')
It is easy to see that a complete separation of these problems is possible (and, strictly speaking, with the exception of our time, these problems have always been divided). The problem of disseminating information was solved by libraries; the problem of material remuneration of the authors was solved in different ways - here and patronage of the arts, and writing works by order, and government support. The problem of the low quality of mass culture did not exist until the appearance of this mass culture.
In the field of fundamental science, these problems are divided now. However, in the field of culture and art, all these three problems were interrelated.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, a revolutionary event in art took place: the appearance of a mass audience. This is primarily due to the advent of broadcast and almost free means of delivering content to the consumer: first, radio, then television and the Internet. The sphere of influence of traditional means of delivery has also significantly expanded: now you cannot even walk a hundred meters through the settlement so as not to stumble upon any advertisement. The information background that emerged over several decades has grown so much that the relationship between the viewer and the content has completely changed: whereas before, in order to read a book or listen to music, a person went to a library or concert hall, now music, text, images and animation surround a person from all parties, regardless of his desires. If before it was necessary to have an obvious effort in order to get the content - now an obvious effort is needed in order not to receive the content.
This revolution gave rise to two new phenomena: mass culture and the media industry.
Mass culture arose after the appearance of a mass audience, which made quite special demands on a work of art. A work that is successful by modern standards should a) successfully stand out from the information background; b) impact on a significant audience; c) be well remembered (keep “notches” in your memory); d) to bring pleasure to consumption. The art of the past has never had a problem to draw the attention of a passenger bus; The listener came to the concert with already prepared attention and a clearly demonstrated desire to hear what he was going to play. Attention has become a valuable resource .
In parallel with the mass culture, the media industry also appeared - a whole branch of the economy engaged only in content production. Its appearance was made possible due to several factors:
And it was here that all three problems were tied.
The low quality of mass content automatically follows from the demands made to him. This is especially evident in the example of music: out of all the wealth of musical genres in popular culture, there is only one left - the song. Such is the "format." Symphonies on the radio do not twist. You can not create a quality product, if you are guaranteed, at best, 3 minutes of attention (and then - this is already a lot; usually 3 seconds). How can a serious literary work compete with detective novels in the field of satisfying the need for content? Yes, it can not, that we see.
Mass art is functionally a kind of drug, at the same time creating and satisfying the need for itself .
Naturally, the media industry wants to pay for each act of consumption of the content created by it. For the time being, there were no problems in this - the user could not get the content except in the factory packaging. However, over time, the user learned how to distribute content on his own, and this was a blow to the industry. Its revenues began to fall, and the content producers did not invent anything other than tightening the screws. An absurd and antisocial copyright is imposed by the force of state coercion.
Is it possible to unleash these problems again? By and large, piracy is doing just that. Ignoring by consumers around the world of illegitimate copyright laws leads to a drop in producers' incomes to the point when you have to invent other schemes. Gradually, there are services that provide content for free or by subscription. However, there are serious doubts that without the pressure of piracy this process will continue. But, nevertheless, the problems of content distribution and payment for it are gradually separated.
However, problem number 3 - the dominance of low-quality content - alas, is not solved by such methods. The revolution has already taken place, and I see no opportunity to turn back time. A certain effect could have a redistribution of financial flows in favor of high-quality content, but it is very difficult to suggest any quality determination mechanism.
Perhaps many will want to ask me a question, why I consider the quality of an intellectual product a copyright problem. I will answer: because copyright, like any other right, is primarily a regulator of social relations, in this case - the relationship between content producers and consumers. Now they are such that it is profitable to produce low-quality product. Let's hope that this conflict will be resolved in the near future.
I hereby convey the above text to the public domain.
Numerous (anti) copyright disputes on Habré (and not only on it) occur, usually, in the same way: on the one hand, “content producers” who will starve without copyright; on the other hand, ordinary users who are not going to pay evil labels for the product they produce. The first is called the second criminals, the second just as zealously argue that copying is not theft.
Meanwhile, there is a regrettable misunderstanding on both sides of the fact that they argue about different problems, which, although interrelated, are different:
')
- the problem of dissemination of information;
- the problem of material reward authors;
- The problem of low quality mass product.
It is easy to see that a complete separation of these problems is possible (and, strictly speaking, with the exception of our time, these problems have always been divided). The problem of disseminating information was solved by libraries; the problem of material remuneration of the authors was solved in different ways - here and patronage of the arts, and writing works by order, and government support. The problem of the low quality of mass culture did not exist until the appearance of this mass culture.
In the field of fundamental science, these problems are divided now. However, in the field of culture and art, all these three problems were interrelated.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, a revolutionary event in art took place: the appearance of a mass audience. This is primarily due to the advent of broadcast and almost free means of delivering content to the consumer: first, radio, then television and the Internet. The sphere of influence of traditional means of delivery has also significantly expanded: now you cannot even walk a hundred meters through the settlement so as not to stumble upon any advertisement. The information background that emerged over several decades has grown so much that the relationship between the viewer and the content has completely changed: whereas before, in order to read a book or listen to music, a person went to a library or concert hall, now music, text, images and animation surround a person from all parties, regardless of his desires. If before it was necessary to have an obvious effort in order to get the content - now an obvious effort is needed in order not to receive the content.
This revolution gave rise to two new phenomena: mass culture and the media industry.
Mass culture arose after the appearance of a mass audience, which made quite special demands on a work of art. A work that is successful by modern standards should a) successfully stand out from the information background; b) impact on a significant audience; c) be well remembered (keep “notches” in your memory); d) to bring pleasure to consumption. The art of the past has never had a problem to draw the attention of a passenger bus; The listener came to the concert with already prepared attention and a clearly demonstrated desire to hear what he was going to play. Attention has become a valuable resource .
In parallel with the mass culture, the media industry also appeared - a whole branch of the economy engaged only in content production. Its appearance was made possible due to several factors:
- opportunities to influence the widest possible audience;
- moving content needs to the lower level of Maslow's pyramid;
- the ability to literally stamp content.
And it was here that all three problems were tied.
The low quality of mass content automatically follows from the demands made to him. This is especially evident in the example of music: out of all the wealth of musical genres in popular culture, there is only one left - the song. Such is the "format." Symphonies on the radio do not twist. You can not create a quality product, if you are guaranteed, at best, 3 minutes of attention (and then - this is already a lot; usually 3 seconds). How can a serious literary work compete with detective novels in the field of satisfying the need for content? Yes, it can not, that we see.
Mass art is functionally a kind of drug, at the same time creating and satisfying the need for itself .
Naturally, the media industry wants to pay for each act of consumption of the content created by it. For the time being, there were no problems in this - the user could not get the content except in the factory packaging. However, over time, the user learned how to distribute content on his own, and this was a blow to the industry. Its revenues began to fall, and the content producers did not invent anything other than tightening the screws. An absurd and antisocial copyright is imposed by the force of state coercion.
Is it possible to unleash these problems again? By and large, piracy is doing just that. Ignoring by consumers around the world of illegitimate copyright laws leads to a drop in producers' incomes to the point when you have to invent other schemes. Gradually, there are services that provide content for free or by subscription. However, there are serious doubts that without the pressure of piracy this process will continue. But, nevertheless, the problems of content distribution and payment for it are gradually separated.
However, problem number 3 - the dominance of low-quality content - alas, is not solved by such methods. The revolution has already taken place, and I see no opportunity to turn back time. A certain effect could have a redistribution of financial flows in favor of high-quality content, but it is very difficult to suggest any quality determination mechanism.
Perhaps many will want to ask me a question, why I consider the quality of an intellectual product a copyright problem. I will answer: because copyright, like any other right, is primarily a regulator of social relations, in this case - the relationship between content producers and consumers. Now they are such that it is profitable to produce low-quality product. Let's hope that this conflict will be resolved in the near future.
I hereby convey the above text to the public domain.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/97082/
All Articles