Copyright: thinking out loud, part 1
Copyright today is one of the most pressing problems of not only legal scholars, but also ordinary citizens - consumers.
Commercialization of creative aspirations brought not only a catastrophic decline in the quality of works of art, but also radically changed the essence and purpose that had once been laid down in the very concept of copyright.
The development of information transfer and processing technologies, which in just 20 years radically changed the mentality of the majority of the world's population, also made a significant contribution to discrediting the original concept of copyright and even their commercially perverse understanding.
')
Today, we can speak with full responsibility about the complete fiasco of the existing concept of copyright both in terms of their implementation and in terms of their mental perception.
In order to get out of the current stalemate, it is necessary to develop and implement a new concept based on completely different principles, in which the interests of authors and consumers should be balanced, and which should correspond to the current situation in the information and mental spheres.
The very concept of copyright by the standards of jurisprudence is one of the youngest - the first regulatory act in which this concept is mentioned dates back to 1710. 1
Until this significant date, the very idea of protecting copyrights as commercial interests was unknown to humanity, which gave us a great number of the greatest works of art (which, by the way, copyright laws are not protected at the moment, because copying them is extremely difficult due to the highest skill authors, or has no commercial sense).
One can argue endlessly about the pros and cons of human life without copyright protection by the state. One thing can be stated with complete confidence: the lack of state copyright protection has had an extremely positive effect on the quality of works of art.
Further, right up to the end of the 19th century, the concept of copyright was shaped by giant leaps: it included not only print publications, but also notes, songs, photos, images and, in general, everything that an author could have and with what, theoretically, you could earn money .
The apotheosis of the commercialization of copyright was the adoption in 1886 of the odious Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. For the first time in the history of mankind, the commercial interests of authors of artistic and literary works have received international legal protection.
Naturally, like many other international legal documents, the Bern Convention quickly became a lever of political influence on countries that for some reason did not accept it (today there are about 10 Bern-independent states): they say, you don’t accept , a convention, do you infringe, then are the interests of our native authors commercial in the territory of your lawless state? Well, we will introduce sanctions right now!
One way or another, but in the 20th century almost all countries joined the convention, where there is written language and more or less centralized authority.
Among the most important principles for our study, the Concept proclaims international recognition of exclusive copyright (that is, such rights, the implementation of which by third parties without the permission of the author is illegal):
As we can see from the list of these exclusive rights, the Convention clearly establishes the principle of the creation of any artistic or literary work: one paid copy - one consumer.
In other words, the Concept finally and with all international responsibility declares: the author creates his works only for the purpose of their sale and payment for each copy sold. This statement stems from tough restraining measures on any public actions with the work of the author.
This is where the basic concept of the modern implementation of copyright arises: to get acquainted with the quality of the work, you need to pay for it the full price that the author sets. That is, the author ultimately determines the price of both his work and the quality thereof. And yes, this is the only branch of the modern market economy where the producer is always a monopolist and the only appraiser of the results of his labor.
And until recently, this concept has worked successfully. And success was due to the level of technical development of society: copying the works was quite time-consuming exercise.
But time does not stand still: first we got high-speed copiers, tape recorders, then available CD and DVD copying tools, now the highest speed of Internet connections and their widest integration into the daily life of the main consumers of author's works.
Copying information has become simple, fast and convenient. Copy protection, on the contrary, has become a cumbersome and indigestible burden for both authors and consumers.
Moreover, with the development of the Internet as an important part of the social life of a huge number of people, it became much easier and faster to evaluate works: if you had heard the track on the radio and sincerely believed that the whole album was just as good, now you just have to go to the network and read the reviews of consumers from around the world and understand that apart from this radio track there is nothing to listen to on the album.
And here any sensible person has a question: why should I pay for 10 tracks in order to listen to only 1 of them?
Another example is the movie. A couple of months before the premiere is an aggressive advertising campaign. Critics write reviews of varying degrees of enthusiasm (in which, mainly, the size of the film budget and the names of famous actors involved in it).
The only legal opportunity for you to see the film for a couple - three months after the premiere - is to go to the movies. That is, in advance to pay the requested amount. Without the possibility of its return.
And you go to the network. There you read consumer reviews and understand that the film’s budget was artificially inflated, the actors play without enthusiasm, and the screenwriter and director are sitting on some mysterious preparation that completely shuts off imagination and imagination.
You do not want to pay money for watching a movie. Or, more precisely, do not want to pay the amount that seemed to the director and producer right.
The third example is a book by a famous author. You have already read 5 of his other books, and all of them caused the most pleasant emotions. And here comes a new one. And everything is very beautifully written on the cover, and the author himself in an interview calls her his best work.
And you buy it. And read to the middle. And set aside. And never again read this author, because the disappointment is too strong.
All these situations are caused by the Berne Convention itself, which enshrines the principle of prepayment without the possibility of refund for low-quality goods.
As can be seen from the examples, both authors and consumers suffer from it. And who wins?
And the mediators win, as always. That is, special organizations that acquire from the authors some exclusive rights and spend money on advertising.
Before them there is no purpose to leave a mark in the cultural heritage. There is no goal to awaken any feelings in you (except, of course, the desire to become the owner of a product). These are well-established and, in their own way, ideal commercial enterprises.
I have no purpose to condemn or extol these organizations - they are part of the author’s reality surrounding us, part of the concept. They just are.
Thus, it turns out that both the author and the consumer are not delighted with the current trend in the field of copyright. And, as we found out, the reason is not the laws of specific states, greedy authors, vile consumers or international corporations. The whole problem is in the general concept. And it is precisely it that needs to be changed, and as soon as possible.
UPD .: Due to the fact that some habrovans perceived my thoughts somehow very personally, I want to specifically emphasize: the purpose of the article is to draw attention to the fact that the problem lies deeper than it seems.
Commercialization of creative aspirations brought not only a catastrophic decline in the quality of works of art, but also radically changed the essence and purpose that had once been laid down in the very concept of copyright.
The development of information transfer and processing technologies, which in just 20 years radically changed the mentality of the majority of the world's population, also made a significant contribution to discrediting the original concept of copyright and even their commercially perverse understanding.
')
Today, we can speak with full responsibility about the complete fiasco of the existing concept of copyright both in terms of their implementation and in terms of their mental perception.
In order to get out of the current stalemate, it is necessary to develop and implement a new concept based on completely different principles, in which the interests of authors and consumers should be balanced, and which should correspond to the current situation in the information and mental spheres.
The very concept of copyright by the standards of jurisprudence is one of the youngest - the first regulatory act in which this concept is mentioned dates back to 1710. 1
Until this significant date, the very idea of protecting copyrights as commercial interests was unknown to humanity, which gave us a great number of the greatest works of art (which, by the way, copyright laws are not protected at the moment, because copying them is extremely difficult due to the highest skill authors, or has no commercial sense).
One can argue endlessly about the pros and cons of human life without copyright protection by the state. One thing can be stated with complete confidence: the lack of state copyright protection has had an extremely positive effect on the quality of works of art.
Further, right up to the end of the 19th century, the concept of copyright was shaped by giant leaps: it included not only print publications, but also notes, songs, photos, images and, in general, everything that an author could have and with what, theoretically, you could earn money .
The apotheosis of the commercialization of copyright was the adoption in 1886 of the odious Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. For the first time in the history of mankind, the commercial interests of authors of artistic and literary works have received international legal protection.
Naturally, like many other international legal documents, the Bern Convention quickly became a lever of political influence on countries that for some reason did not accept it (today there are about 10 Bern-independent states): they say, you don’t accept , a convention, do you infringe, then are the interests of our native authors commercial in the territory of your lawless state? Well, we will introduce sanctions right now!
One way or another, but in the 20th century almost all countries joined the convention, where there is written language and more or less centralized authority.
Among the most important principles for our study, the Concept proclaims international recognition of exclusive copyright (that is, such rights, the implementation of which by third parties without the permission of the author is illegal):
- The right to reproduce the work in any way and in any form
- Right to translate
- Right to public broadcast
- The right to public performance
- Right to read publicly
- The right to alterations, arrangements and other changes of the work
- The right to cinematic remake of the work
As we can see from the list of these exclusive rights, the Convention clearly establishes the principle of the creation of any artistic or literary work: one paid copy - one consumer.
In other words, the Concept finally and with all international responsibility declares: the author creates his works only for the purpose of their sale and payment for each copy sold. This statement stems from tough restraining measures on any public actions with the work of the author.
This is where the basic concept of the modern implementation of copyright arises: to get acquainted with the quality of the work, you need to pay for it the full price that the author sets. That is, the author ultimately determines the price of both his work and the quality thereof. And yes, this is the only branch of the modern market economy where the producer is always a monopolist and the only appraiser of the results of his labor.
And until recently, this concept has worked successfully. And success was due to the level of technical development of society: copying the works was quite time-consuming exercise.
But time does not stand still: first we got high-speed copiers, tape recorders, then available CD and DVD copying tools, now the highest speed of Internet connections and their widest integration into the daily life of the main consumers of author's works.
Copying information has become simple, fast and convenient. Copy protection, on the contrary, has become a cumbersome and indigestible burden for both authors and consumers.
Moreover, with the development of the Internet as an important part of the social life of a huge number of people, it became much easier and faster to evaluate works: if you had heard the track on the radio and sincerely believed that the whole album was just as good, now you just have to go to the network and read the reviews of consumers from around the world and understand that apart from this radio track there is nothing to listen to on the album.
And here any sensible person has a question: why should I pay for 10 tracks in order to listen to only 1 of them?
Another example is the movie. A couple of months before the premiere is an aggressive advertising campaign. Critics write reviews of varying degrees of enthusiasm (in which, mainly, the size of the film budget and the names of famous actors involved in it).
The only legal opportunity for you to see the film for a couple - three months after the premiere - is to go to the movies. That is, in advance to pay the requested amount. Without the possibility of its return.
And you go to the network. There you read consumer reviews and understand that the film’s budget was artificially inflated, the actors play without enthusiasm, and the screenwriter and director are sitting on some mysterious preparation that completely shuts off imagination and imagination.
You do not want to pay money for watching a movie. Or, more precisely, do not want to pay the amount that seemed to the director and producer right.
The third example is a book by a famous author. You have already read 5 of his other books, and all of them caused the most pleasant emotions. And here comes a new one. And everything is very beautifully written on the cover, and the author himself in an interview calls her his best work.
And you buy it. And read to the middle. And set aside. And never again read this author, because the disappointment is too strong.
All these situations are caused by the Berne Convention itself, which enshrines the principle of prepayment without the possibility of refund for low-quality goods.
As can be seen from the examples, both authors and consumers suffer from it. And who wins?
And the mediators win, as always. That is, special organizations that acquire from the authors some exclusive rights and spend money on advertising.
Before them there is no purpose to leave a mark in the cultural heritage. There is no goal to awaken any feelings in you (except, of course, the desire to become the owner of a product). These are well-established and, in their own way, ideal commercial enterprises.
I have no purpose to condemn or extol these organizations - they are part of the author’s reality surrounding us, part of the concept. They just are.
Thus, it turns out that both the author and the consumer are not delighted with the current trend in the field of copyright. And, as we found out, the reason is not the laws of specific states, greedy authors, vile consumers or international corporations. The whole problem is in the general concept. And it is precisely it that needs to be changed, and as soon as possible.
UPD .: Due to the fact that some habrovans perceived my thoughts somehow very personally, I want to specifically emphasize: the purpose of the article is to draw attention to the fact that the problem lies deeper than it seems.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/97225/
All Articles