Questions to copyright advocates
Disclaimer . Yes, I understand that copyright holivors got us all. But still, there is one unfinished business that I really want to finish.
During one of the discussions, I formulated five questions for copyright advocates. Unfortunately, these questions were left unanswered.
I do not consider myself to be those people who demand the abolition of copyright at any cost. I believe that a compromise can and should be reached on this issue, and therefore I am ready to listen carefully to the reasoned opinion from the other side of the “barricades”.
')
I proceed from the principle of the presumption of innocence: you, who support the preservation of copyright, do not do it out of the desire to shake more money from users by force of state coercion, but really want to make this world better and more convenient for authors and consumers. In that case, how do you answer the following questions for yourself:
1. The state gives the author the right to determine the conditions of access of each specific consumer to their content. This is a monopoly by definition. Nevertheless, the need for this monopoly is very doubtful. Indeed, it is very easy to do without it, for example, as follows: when publishing a work, the author simultaneously publishes an offer that establishes the amount he wishes to receive from each copy of the work. Any publisher has the right to buy a license for the number of copies that it intends to distribute through its channels. The author himself has no right to publish his works.
Obviously, such a scheme is beneficial for both authors and consumers, since it leads to competition among publishers and provides an incentive to improve the service and provide additional options. So why does monopoly exist?
2. Once we have a monopoly, then there is no market. The current system — paying a licensed copy as the generally accepted way of obtaining author permission to access content — is no more than a convention, and can be changed or detailed in an arbitrary manner. All that RAW is doing right now is a demonstration of various possibilities that the monopoly gives the author - raising money for radio sets in hotels, for example; or a ban to put the play "The Little Prince" with deviations from the canonical text and adults in the title role ( pruflink ).
It seems absolutely logical that the right to fair access (paid!) To information is more important than the tyranny of the authors and their representatives.
3. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes two types of contracts: on alienation and on licensing. In the second case, the exclusive rights are transferred in part. It seems that the cancellation of contracts on the alienation of rights will be in the hands of both authors and consumers and will be disadvantageous only to those who want to put on the author’s shoes and use his work without deducting a penny. Why are exclusive rights still alienable? After all, the exclusive right of the author to indicate his name on the cover is inalienable than exclusive property rights better?
4. The public domain should theoretically ensure the constant flow of “time-tested” content into the public domain. However, in practice exactly the opposite happens: content is REMOVED from the public domain — for example, after the copyright has been extended from 50 to 70 years in Russia, some of the content (for example, Rachmaninoff’s work) has been removed from the public domain.
The same content that still needs to remain in the public domain is in reality copywriting. For example, phonograms are copyrighted for remastering. Neither the authors nor the performers receive a penny for this content (copyright has expired), but you cannot freely copy it.
Obviously, the law should stimulate the accumulation of public domain, but in reality it is strictly the opposite.
5. And finally, the question of libraries. All the time when there were no cheap copying options, libraries were designed to provide the widest possible consumer base with access to content. It never occurred to anyone to count the lost profit from the fact that people went to the library and did not buy books. Tens of thousands of people used one book, and no one considered it a violation of the authors' rights.
Now, when electronic libraries have become much more convenient, they are virtually outlawed, although their essence and function are exactly the same as those of offline libraries.
I ask those who consider copyright fair to comment on these five points.
During one of the discussions, I formulated five questions for copyright advocates. Unfortunately, these questions were left unanswered.
I do not consider myself to be those people who demand the abolition of copyright at any cost. I believe that a compromise can and should be reached on this issue, and therefore I am ready to listen carefully to the reasoned opinion from the other side of the “barricades”.
')
I proceed from the principle of the presumption of innocence: you, who support the preservation of copyright, do not do it out of the desire to shake more money from users by force of state coercion, but really want to make this world better and more convenient for authors and consumers. In that case, how do you answer the following questions for yourself:
- 1. Why does copyright exist in the form of monopoly?
- 2. What kind of market can we talk about in these conditions?
- 3. Why are exclusive rights alienable?
- 4. Why does the public domain exist only on paper?
- 5. Why are digital libraries outlawed?
1. The state gives the author the right to determine the conditions of access of each specific consumer to their content. This is a monopoly by definition. Nevertheless, the need for this monopoly is very doubtful. Indeed, it is very easy to do without it, for example, as follows: when publishing a work, the author simultaneously publishes an offer that establishes the amount he wishes to receive from each copy of the work. Any publisher has the right to buy a license for the number of copies that it intends to distribute through its channels. The author himself has no right to publish his works.
Obviously, such a scheme is beneficial for both authors and consumers, since it leads to competition among publishers and provides an incentive to improve the service and provide additional options. So why does monopoly exist?
2. Once we have a monopoly, then there is no market. The current system — paying a licensed copy as the generally accepted way of obtaining author permission to access content — is no more than a convention, and can be changed or detailed in an arbitrary manner. All that RAW is doing right now is a demonstration of various possibilities that the monopoly gives the author - raising money for radio sets in hotels, for example; or a ban to put the play "The Little Prince" with deviations from the canonical text and adults in the title role ( pruflink ).
It seems absolutely logical that the right to fair access (paid!) To information is more important than the tyranny of the authors and their representatives.
3. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes two types of contracts: on alienation and on licensing. In the second case, the exclusive rights are transferred in part. It seems that the cancellation of contracts on the alienation of rights will be in the hands of both authors and consumers and will be disadvantageous only to those who want to put on the author’s shoes and use his work without deducting a penny. Why are exclusive rights still alienable? After all, the exclusive right of the author to indicate his name on the cover is inalienable than exclusive property rights better?
4. The public domain should theoretically ensure the constant flow of “time-tested” content into the public domain. However, in practice exactly the opposite happens: content is REMOVED from the public domain — for example, after the copyright has been extended from 50 to 70 years in Russia, some of the content (for example, Rachmaninoff’s work) has been removed from the public domain.
The same content that still needs to remain in the public domain is in reality copywriting. For example, phonograms are copyrighted for remastering. Neither the authors nor the performers receive a penny for this content (copyright has expired), but you cannot freely copy it.
Obviously, the law should stimulate the accumulation of public domain, but in reality it is strictly the opposite.
5. And finally, the question of libraries. All the time when there were no cheap copying options, libraries were designed to provide the widest possible consumer base with access to content. It never occurred to anyone to count the lost profit from the fact that people went to the library and did not buy books. Tens of thousands of people used one book, and no one considered it a violation of the authors' rights.
Now, when electronic libraries have become much more convenient, they are virtually outlawed, although their essence and function are exactly the same as those of offline libraries.
I ask those who consider copyright fair to comment on these five points.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/99313/
All Articles