Copyright reform. What can be offered?
An active discussion on Habré regarding copyright and related processes, continuing for more than one day, contains a lot of extremely logical, at a glance, abstracts. However, many of them in the analysis reveal certain contradictions, which lead either to their final emotional rejection, or cause even greater contradictions in the confrontation of subjects or quasi-objects of copyright.
I dare to make my "five kopecks" in the discussion. In order to bring a certain professional color to my point of view, characterizing my professional affiliation: I have been working as an attorney for almost five years, in my spare time I am working on my thesis on a subject in the theory of law and the state.
I would like to start with a general description of such a phenomenon as “copyright”, dwell on the most significant aspects to be taken into account when determining the form of its regulation and, as a conclusion, indicate how personally I would change the current Russian copyright law.
In itself, “copyright” in an objective sense is a set of legal norms regulating legal relations related to the emergence and subsequent existence of various objects that are the expression of a person’s creative activity. It is intuitive to everyone that copyright itself emerged much later than human civilization. It is doubtful that a man who painted a deer on a rock forbade his fellow tribesmen to do this (unless of course some religious considerations were involved). The first regulatory document associated with the emergence of a positive (that is, written) copyright Statute of Queen Anne, adopted by the British Parliaments in 1710, enshrines the exclusive right of subjects listed in the Statute to the object of creativity, which were books, for 14 years.
Such “man-made” (as opposed to such a right as “the right to life”, for example) of legal norms - copyright regulators allow to conclude that copyright itself is not something originally defined. On the contrary, their change one way or another is a natural process that must take into account the current situation, namely the following:
The economic aspect. Everything is quite clear with him - as stated in a recent post, according to the vice-president of the United States, the “creative impulse of America” is perhaps the main export item. Considered the relationship of the world economy with the dollar, the global significance of the process of creating a creative product is not in doubt.
')
Legal aspect. It is based on two fundamental principles of a democratic society: the right to freely seek, receive, transmit, produce and distribute information in any legal way and freedom of creativity. This also includes the protective function of the right, aimed at protecting the rights and interests of all copyright holders.
Technical aspect. The development of science and technology corresponding to a certain point in time, which makes it possible to reproduce, copy or transmit the results of creative activity. In addition, in this case, the cost of creating a creative product is of great importance. To write an average computer game in the early 80s was worth a whole different money than it is now.
Creatively motivating aspect. This is how much the current situation stimulates the author to create a new work. The state or public structures have the opportunity to create conditions under which the author will be interested in creating. This may be a financial reward or recognition of merit.
I think you can easily identify a number of significant aspects. But the idea is that all elements constituting the essence of copyright as a legal phenomenon, and its actual implementation, are closely interrelated.
Errors, archaism in legal regulation or one-sided lobbying of the interests of certain groups lead to the consequences that we face today: the technical ease of copying and transmitting information leads to the fact that the legal ban on counterfeit works of art is ignored by society. Attempts at one-sided actions, such as reinforcing bans, only lead to discontent and social tension. Authors and publishers are unhappy that no one pays for their works. Content users grin, update the torrent client and buy a new terabyte hard drive, and on Habré, to the delight of all, there is a discussion, beating on karma.
The current copyright law is called "illegitimate", that is, non-legal. Immediately positivist slogans are heard that no matter what the law is, it is subject to execution. But here I can give a very good, in my opinion, an example of such laws as “all the English who have reached 14 years old are obliged to practice archery for 2 hours a week under the guidance of a local priest”. There are plenty of similar “funny” laws from around the world on the web.
However, the basic principle of copyright must leave a balance of interests of all its subjects. Is it possible? It seems, yes. And the thing is this:
No matter how developed science and technology, there will always be some complex or exclusive form of execution of the work. There is no need to go far for examples: even a large TV will not replace a cinema, especially 3D, no audio recording will replace a live performance of artists, and so on. It is not by chance that the economic potential of films is estimated at box office.
A good book for a home library will be bought by a book lover and even computer games have found their own unique way of “playing” - an online game, which, if you have an exclusively pirated copy, is not practical (prefixed ban) or impossible at all. Of course, some form of content distribution will be at risk. Who needs a CD with a group's time recording - when you can download it from torrents in a few minutes. But maybe this downloaded disc will serve as a reason to go to the concert and listen to the “live” sound? And the more popular the performer, the more expensive the ticket and the more people want to get to such a concert. Dying off of some forms of economic activity and replacing them with others is a completely natural process. Once the main export product was hemp, tar and hides, now oil and gas.
The actual “free copying” of information should also be used for the benefit of society. How exactly, I will explain further.
What form of optimal legal regulation of legal relations in the field of copyright can I personally see:
1. Reduction of the term of the exclusive right to work. And you can differentiate this reduction. So, let's say, a sufficient time for a computer program is 3-4 years. How many computer publishers of this age sells? I think not a lot. The exclusive right to reproduce the work on a tangible medium can be retained by the author for a long time, but it is legal to find a digital copy of the work in the global network. Why not?
2. To strictly distinguish between the use of a creative product for personal and commercial purposes. To exercise strict control over the use of creative work for commercial purposes. Two big differences, whether I use Photoshop to resize pictures from digital cameras or prepare photos for advertising turns. Taking into account the growth of freelancing, control, of course, is difficult, but a certain mechanism can be created. The use of the pirated operating system by any "Yukos" is simply unacceptable. That is, entrepreneurial activity can also be differentiated.
3. To expand the list of subjects entitled to free use of copyright objects. Schools and universities should receive certain objects of copyright at the price of the carrier. This should also apply to socially vulnerable groups of the population. Every person with disabilities should be able to obtain any copyright object at the price of the carrier. If a person confined to a wheelchair can play all new games without special material costs or freely watch movies, will this not make him happier?
But what to do with those who, for example, buy "sewn" art-boxes or shakes "ekranki." And do nothing. If a person prefers to watch a low-quality copy of the cinema, then there are certain reasons for this. Lack of cinema, aesthetic tastes or lack of money. Treat this consumption as well as to rewriting books on sheets of paper, that is, it does not matter. Anyway, manufacturers will figure out how to make a subject with financial capabilities buy a licensed product or pay them indirectly (by viewing an advertisement, etc.)
In summary, I would like to express the following:
I think that at present the situation in the field of copyright suits the majority. Periodically there are various groups that are trying to protect their interests, but this is nothing more than informational noise. Like screams about violence in computer games. The farther, the more bloody and worse the games become. And most like it. Therefore, thinking about changing the rules of copyright is of course necessary. The situation in which most of the country is criminals is nonsense. But after all, not all the British, who have reached the age of 14, practice archery for 2 hours a week under the guidance of a local priest. It is difficult to say how the situation will develop in the future. We are pleased with the presence of political tendencies, such as the appearance of a “pirate party”, aimed at changing the current situation. But as it will be next - wait and see.
In turn, I would very much like to hear the suggestions of the participants, how exactly would they like to reform the current Russian copyright law? And what, in their opinion, the consequences that it entailed?
I dare to make my "five kopecks" in the discussion. In order to bring a certain professional color to my point of view, characterizing my professional affiliation: I have been working as an attorney for almost five years, in my spare time I am working on my thesis on a subject in the theory of law and the state.
I would like to start with a general description of such a phenomenon as “copyright”, dwell on the most significant aspects to be taken into account when determining the form of its regulation and, as a conclusion, indicate how personally I would change the current Russian copyright law.
In itself, “copyright” in an objective sense is a set of legal norms regulating legal relations related to the emergence and subsequent existence of various objects that are the expression of a person’s creative activity. It is intuitive to everyone that copyright itself emerged much later than human civilization. It is doubtful that a man who painted a deer on a rock forbade his fellow tribesmen to do this (unless of course some religious considerations were involved). The first regulatory document associated with the emergence of a positive (that is, written) copyright Statute of Queen Anne, adopted by the British Parliaments in 1710, enshrines the exclusive right of subjects listed in the Statute to the object of creativity, which were books, for 14 years.
Such “man-made” (as opposed to such a right as “the right to life”, for example) of legal norms - copyright regulators allow to conclude that copyright itself is not something originally defined. On the contrary, their change one way or another is a natural process that must take into account the current situation, namely the following:
The economic aspect. Everything is quite clear with him - as stated in a recent post, according to the vice-president of the United States, the “creative impulse of America” is perhaps the main export item. Considered the relationship of the world economy with the dollar, the global significance of the process of creating a creative product is not in doubt.
')
Legal aspect. It is based on two fundamental principles of a democratic society: the right to freely seek, receive, transmit, produce and distribute information in any legal way and freedom of creativity. This also includes the protective function of the right, aimed at protecting the rights and interests of all copyright holders.
Technical aspect. The development of science and technology corresponding to a certain point in time, which makes it possible to reproduce, copy or transmit the results of creative activity. In addition, in this case, the cost of creating a creative product is of great importance. To write an average computer game in the early 80s was worth a whole different money than it is now.
Creatively motivating aspect. This is how much the current situation stimulates the author to create a new work. The state or public structures have the opportunity to create conditions under which the author will be interested in creating. This may be a financial reward or recognition of merit.
I think you can easily identify a number of significant aspects. But the idea is that all elements constituting the essence of copyright as a legal phenomenon, and its actual implementation, are closely interrelated.
Errors, archaism in legal regulation or one-sided lobbying of the interests of certain groups lead to the consequences that we face today: the technical ease of copying and transmitting information leads to the fact that the legal ban on counterfeit works of art is ignored by society. Attempts at one-sided actions, such as reinforcing bans, only lead to discontent and social tension. Authors and publishers are unhappy that no one pays for their works. Content users grin, update the torrent client and buy a new terabyte hard drive, and on Habré, to the delight of all, there is a discussion, beating on karma.
The current copyright law is called "illegitimate", that is, non-legal. Immediately positivist slogans are heard that no matter what the law is, it is subject to execution. But here I can give a very good, in my opinion, an example of such laws as “all the English who have reached 14 years old are obliged to practice archery for 2 hours a week under the guidance of a local priest”. There are plenty of similar “funny” laws from around the world on the web.
However, the basic principle of copyright must leave a balance of interests of all its subjects. Is it possible? It seems, yes. And the thing is this:
No matter how developed science and technology, there will always be some complex or exclusive form of execution of the work. There is no need to go far for examples: even a large TV will not replace a cinema, especially 3D, no audio recording will replace a live performance of artists, and so on. It is not by chance that the economic potential of films is estimated at box office.
A good book for a home library will be bought by a book lover and even computer games have found their own unique way of “playing” - an online game, which, if you have an exclusively pirated copy, is not practical (prefixed ban) or impossible at all. Of course, some form of content distribution will be at risk. Who needs a CD with a group's time recording - when you can download it from torrents in a few minutes. But maybe this downloaded disc will serve as a reason to go to the concert and listen to the “live” sound? And the more popular the performer, the more expensive the ticket and the more people want to get to such a concert. Dying off of some forms of economic activity and replacing them with others is a completely natural process. Once the main export product was hemp, tar and hides, now oil and gas.
The actual “free copying” of information should also be used for the benefit of society. How exactly, I will explain further.
What form of optimal legal regulation of legal relations in the field of copyright can I personally see:
1. Reduction of the term of the exclusive right to work. And you can differentiate this reduction. So, let's say, a sufficient time for a computer program is 3-4 years. How many computer publishers of this age sells? I think not a lot. The exclusive right to reproduce the work on a tangible medium can be retained by the author for a long time, but it is legal to find a digital copy of the work in the global network. Why not?
2. To strictly distinguish between the use of a creative product for personal and commercial purposes. To exercise strict control over the use of creative work for commercial purposes. Two big differences, whether I use Photoshop to resize pictures from digital cameras or prepare photos for advertising turns. Taking into account the growth of freelancing, control, of course, is difficult, but a certain mechanism can be created. The use of the pirated operating system by any "Yukos" is simply unacceptable. That is, entrepreneurial activity can also be differentiated.
3. To expand the list of subjects entitled to free use of copyright objects. Schools and universities should receive certain objects of copyright at the price of the carrier. This should also apply to socially vulnerable groups of the population. Every person with disabilities should be able to obtain any copyright object at the price of the carrier. If a person confined to a wheelchair can play all new games without special material costs or freely watch movies, will this not make him happier?
But what to do with those who, for example, buy "sewn" art-boxes or shakes "ekranki." And do nothing. If a person prefers to watch a low-quality copy of the cinema, then there are certain reasons for this. Lack of cinema, aesthetic tastes or lack of money. Treat this consumption as well as to rewriting books on sheets of paper, that is, it does not matter. Anyway, manufacturers will figure out how to make a subject with financial capabilities buy a licensed product or pay them indirectly (by viewing an advertisement, etc.)
In summary, I would like to express the following:
I think that at present the situation in the field of copyright suits the majority. Periodically there are various groups that are trying to protect their interests, but this is nothing more than informational noise. Like screams about violence in computer games. The farther, the more bloody and worse the games become. And most like it. Therefore, thinking about changing the rules of copyright is of course necessary. The situation in which most of the country is criminals is nonsense. But after all, not all the British, who have reached the age of 14, practice archery for 2 hours a week under the guidance of a local priest. It is difficult to say how the situation will develop in the future. We are pleased with the presence of political tendencies, such as the appearance of a “pirate party”, aimed at changing the current situation. But as it will be next - wait and see.
In turn, I would very much like to hear the suggestions of the participants, how exactly would they like to reform the current Russian copyright law? And what, in their opinion, the consequences that it entailed?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/97237/
All Articles