In response to the next alignment of points over copyright issues
To be honest, I believe that the topic of “copyright” is already quite beaten and of little interest for discussion. At least, for people who have a direct relationship or at least an interest in matters of law and political economy. However, I can not go past the last article bobermaniac'a.
The reason for writing these lines is in the behavior of the author, who, using rather obvious demagogy, tries to spread his point of view and it seems to me that he does it quite well.
Next, I present a critical analysis of his words in terms of law, economics, and elementary logic.
For starters, I would like to draw attention to the author's method. Bobermaniac uses a method of explaining his own point of view that is quite widespread in various literature, which consists in conducting a reasoned argument with an imaginary opponent. But since the opponent is imaginary and his whole argument is given by the author, there is always a very strong temptation to use only part of the well-known arguments, and also to dilute it (the argument) and completely absurd considerations to belittle the opponent. What we actually see in this opus.
')
I'm going to pick out the main ideas from his text and later criticize them.
I would like to make a reservation, at the beginning the author declares, in quite frank language, that “it’s strange for people in the head” and is called to explain everything from his position of authority. There is also a statement that the text is intended for a “mass reader”.
My question is brewing up, on what “mass reader” did the author count, writing an article to a highly specialized community? If so, it is quite obvious both in the number of articles on the topic and in the comments to them that the majority of Habr's readers already have their own formed opinion on this issue. And if not, then it is more likely from more serious doubts than those that can be solved by an article oriented to the "general reader." I would also like to believe that the author does not stoop to banal insults of people who do not share his point of view, saying that someone “is in awe of the head”, I would like to believe ...
So, the author's argument can be divided into three categories: economic, legal and logical.
From all that has been read, it can be said that the main message of the author is that there is a law protecting copyright and this law must be fulfilled.
Of course, the laws must be executed. But what is a law in general terms, and what is a law?
Many philosophers and theorists of law tried to answer this question. Tons of waste paper was inscribed in disputes yuspozitivistov and yusnaturilistov. At one time, I read a lot of literature on this subject, and I want to save the time of habra people who do not study law, with the following statement: “ Right is how people would like their society to be organized. And the positive law (law) is the organization of society, on which people could agree, comparing their opinions ”.
Therefore, when someone speaks about copyright, he must understand that this is not something given by nature, but something to which we came by discussion and agreement throughout history. A consensus on legal issues has always been reached for the benefit of society as a whole (with the exception of tyrannical regimes).
When the press appeared in Europe, public figures (politicians of the time) decided to expand the scope of copyright, adding to it the exclusive right to distribute these works. Thus, the society as a whole, through its representatives, recognized - gave legitimacy to these new rights of the author. All this was done so that writers could continue their work, delighting us with new works of art.
But the question is, that part of the copyright that is responsible for the exclusive dissemination of information, eventually lost its legitimacy . In other words, most of society no longer supports copyright in a broad sense. Now everyone wants an unobstructed exchange of information - this is the will of society, this is the right. A positive (written) right, just does not keep up with him.
For laws to be effective, they need to be enforced. And how can a law be fulfilled without content? If it is supported by less than one third of the citizens?
If the law has lost legitimacy, then it is only a matter of time to be annulled.
All other legal arguments of the author should be in the same vein, but the source itself is already polluted and the findings themselves too ... Well, yes, licensing exists, laws exist, they need to be followed (or they need to be changed). But the very existence of legislation does not determine the correctness, the existence of a law cannot justify an unjust situation, and something cannot be just if an absolute majority disagrees.
The second kind of author's argument is economic. Bobermaniac, in the very first paragraph of his article, opposes the free distribution of information to the fact that the author received remuneration.
In my opinion, this is nonsense. Why is necessarily the only way for an author to receive remuneration for his work - is to impose payment on every single copy?
Is it not possible to allow free distribution and at the same time subsidize the author ? For example, why not allow free distribution through the official bodies (Internet portals, mail and media libraries) and through them calculate the distribution statistics. And according to statistics, distribute cash subsidies to the authors? If we distribute the same amount to which the multimedia market had been valued earlier, the authors will receive even more, since we will get rid of intermediaries. The main thing is to have transparency.
So, free distribution can not be directly opposed to the presence of remuneration for authors who can also earn by means of private orders and donations.
The remaining arguments of the author are fed either from a legal or economic argument considered earlier.
There are also logical answers to not very logical statements. Well, for example, I quote: “I believe that by distributing content for free, I help rightholders to increase sales. Everyone only benefits from this ”or“ I don’t want to pay for low-quality goods ”, or“ Why is it so expensive? I think it should be cheaper. ”
The question is brewing, the author deliberately dragged such stupid statements to break them in tatters by banal logic? It seems to me that yes. Since, I do not see who will seriously advocate for changing the copyright system with such statements. In other words, the author would like the arguments of his opponents to be so stupid, but unfortunately this is not so.
In addition, there are questions unrelated to the topic, for example: “What is to be done with the dominance of low-quality content?”
Next, I would like to note once again that this is Habr and the majority here clearly understand that it is simply impossible to combat the dissemination of information in the network; the more they will prevent this distribution, the more sophisticated the distribution methods will be. It’s not a question that when encryption methods come to a new level and are accessible to all, they will be used to hide more serious crimes and some of the blame for this will lie with today's human rights defenders.
UPD: I would like to thank the user asdffdsa for help in writing the article.
The reason for writing these lines is in the behavior of the author, who, using rather obvious demagogy, tries to spread his point of view and it seems to me that he does it quite well.
Next, I present a critical analysis of his words in terms of law, economics, and elementary logic.
For starters, I would like to draw attention to the author's method. Bobermaniac uses a method of explaining his own point of view that is quite widespread in various literature, which consists in conducting a reasoned argument with an imaginary opponent. But since the opponent is imaginary and his whole argument is given by the author, there is always a very strong temptation to use only part of the well-known arguments, and also to dilute it (the argument) and completely absurd considerations to belittle the opponent. What we actually see in this opus.
')
I'm going to pick out the main ideas from his text and later criticize them.
I would like to make a reservation, at the beginning the author declares, in quite frank language, that “it’s strange for people in the head” and is called to explain everything from his position of authority. There is also a statement that the text is intended for a “mass reader”.
My question is brewing up, on what “mass reader” did the author count, writing an article to a highly specialized community? If so, it is quite obvious both in the number of articles on the topic and in the comments to them that the majority of Habr's readers already have their own formed opinion on this issue. And if not, then it is more likely from more serious doubts than those that can be solved by an article oriented to the "general reader." I would also like to believe that the author does not stoop to banal insults of people who do not share his point of view, saying that someone “is in awe of the head”, I would like to believe ...
So, the author's argument can be divided into three categories: economic, legal and logical.
Legal reasoning
From all that has been read, it can be said that the main message of the author is that there is a law protecting copyright and this law must be fulfilled.
Of course, the laws must be executed. But what is a law in general terms, and what is a law?
Many philosophers and theorists of law tried to answer this question. Tons of waste paper was inscribed in disputes yuspozitivistov and yusnaturilistov. At one time, I read a lot of literature on this subject, and I want to save the time of habra people who do not study law, with the following statement: “ Right is how people would like their society to be organized. And the positive law (law) is the organization of society, on which people could agree, comparing their opinions ”.
Therefore, when someone speaks about copyright, he must understand that this is not something given by nature, but something to which we came by discussion and agreement throughout history. A consensus on legal issues has always been reached for the benefit of society as a whole (with the exception of tyrannical regimes).
When the press appeared in Europe, public figures (politicians of the time) decided to expand the scope of copyright, adding to it the exclusive right to distribute these works. Thus, the society as a whole, through its representatives, recognized - gave legitimacy to these new rights of the author. All this was done so that writers could continue their work, delighting us with new works of art.
But the question is, that part of the copyright that is responsible for the exclusive dissemination of information, eventually lost its legitimacy . In other words, most of society no longer supports copyright in a broad sense. Now everyone wants an unobstructed exchange of information - this is the will of society, this is the right. A positive (written) right, just does not keep up with him.
For laws to be effective, they need to be enforced. And how can a law be fulfilled without content? If it is supported by less than one third of the citizens?
If the law has lost legitimacy, then it is only a matter of time to be annulled.
All other legal arguments of the author should be in the same vein, but the source itself is already polluted and the findings themselves too ... Well, yes, licensing exists, laws exist, they need to be followed (or they need to be changed). But the very existence of legislation does not determine the correctness, the existence of a law cannot justify an unjust situation, and something cannot be just if an absolute majority disagrees.
Economic reasoning
The second kind of author's argument is economic. Bobermaniac, in the very first paragraph of his article, opposes the free distribution of information to the fact that the author received remuneration.
In my opinion, this is nonsense. Why is necessarily the only way for an author to receive remuneration for his work - is to impose payment on every single copy?
Is it not possible to allow free distribution and at the same time subsidize the author ? For example, why not allow free distribution through the official bodies (Internet portals, mail and media libraries) and through them calculate the distribution statistics. And according to statistics, distribute cash subsidies to the authors? If we distribute the same amount to which the multimedia market had been valued earlier, the authors will receive even more, since we will get rid of intermediaries. The main thing is to have transparency.
So, free distribution can not be directly opposed to the presence of remuneration for authors who can also earn by means of private orders and donations.
Logical reasoning
The remaining arguments of the author are fed either from a legal or economic argument considered earlier.
There are also logical answers to not very logical statements. Well, for example, I quote: “I believe that by distributing content for free, I help rightholders to increase sales. Everyone only benefits from this ”or“ I don’t want to pay for low-quality goods ”, or“ Why is it so expensive? I think it should be cheaper. ”
The question is brewing, the author deliberately dragged such stupid statements to break them in tatters by banal logic? It seems to me that yes. Since, I do not see who will seriously advocate for changing the copyright system with such statements. In other words, the author would like the arguments of his opponents to be so stupid, but unfortunately this is not so.
In addition, there are questions unrelated to the topic, for example: “What is to be done with the dominance of low-quality content?”
Next, I would like to note once again that this is Habr and the majority here clearly understand that it is simply impossible to combat the dissemination of information in the network; the more they will prevent this distribution, the more sophisticated the distribution methods will be. It’s not a question that when encryption methods come to a new level and are accessible to all, they will be used to hide more serious crimes and some of the blame for this will lie with today's human rights defenders.
UPD: I would like to thank the user asdffdsa for help in writing the article.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/97243/
All Articles