Copyright and a bit of porn
The basis of the thesis of the defense of the traditional copyright system is the postulate that if everyone is allowed to steal everything, then films will not be made, music will sound, and poems will be composed. Deprived of the protection of the state apparatus, the flow of intellectual products will run out, leaving humanity to vegetate on the sidelines of progress.
The paintings, drawn in the usual stories about intellectual piracy, widely exploit the image of a hungry poet who cannot receive adequate compensation for his work and talent. This image is incredibly emotionally strong, especially taking into account the fact that this position is taken not only by representatives of copyright holders (large labels and corporations), who can not be convicted of malnutrition, but also by real authors and artists. And with their talent they proved the right to their own opinion.
However, I believe that this point of view is erroneous. By the way, many supporters of the reform of the copyright system think so. Therefore, I will not give all the theoretical arguments in this regard, but try to prove the fallacy of the position of classical copyright by example.
And this example lies in the word, because of which (let's honestly admit), many have opened this post, - porn. We will not pay attention to the legality and morality of this content. We isolate (I specifically chose this word) only part of the monetization of an intangible asset. After all, porn is exactly the same audiovisual work as any video or movie. And in the case of some clips, confusion can occur even on the semantic content.
An analysis of some aspects of the monetization of this specific content reveals the nuances of the development of modern copyright.
First, the porn industry is booming. Billions are spinning there. At the same time, porn is not protected by law as harshly as other content. The industry was able to accumulate huge cash flows without having to put someone in jail for 5 years for illegally using Sasha Gray's photograph in his demotivator. It would be a mistake to say that all this money is illegal like drug trafficking. I think that if explicit and absolutely illegal content, such as real violence or involving minors, is excluded from the statistics, the amount of money in the industry will be colossal: as the chaste Wikipedia indicates, The figures are in the region of 10 billion dollars annually. It is more than the sports and music industry combined.
Has anyone heard of a hungry porn director?
But seriously, the reason, in my opinion, is that, without state support, the industry was forced to build relations with the market on an equal footing. This led to the fact that:
(a) there is a huge amount of free content that makes money through an advertising model or serves as a decoy to paid content;
(b) along with advertising, a widespread subscription model;
(c) the price of content is much lower than in the media industry. Often, downloading a song or buying 1 movie is more expensive than getting a monthly subscription to some indecent resource (I don’t understand how moral advocates overlooked it);
(d) a significant amount of content in a short time passes from the category of paid to free (the language does not dare to call it the public domain), replaced by new products.
All these trends can now be seen in the classic copyright, but they are seriously slowed down by the Dutch copyright disease. The essence of this disease is in the corruption and weakening of the economy due to cheap and excess resources. In this case, such a resource is state support.
The police and the courts that guard the classic media industry play the role of a temporary dam for brewing change. The whole power of a huge army of lobbyists, lawyers and officials is focused on the possibility of ensuring the clearly archaic right of the copyright holder to prohibit someone from listening to his music / singing his songs or watching his films if the user does not agree to the conditions put forward by the copyright holder. In other words, there is a struggle for the right of copyright holders not to listen to the market. But the trick is that the more the copyright holder relies on the state, the sooner it will fail in the market.
Rightholders should learn from porn. Not in the literal sense, but regarding the survival of the industry and pumping money out of the consumer. Either the copyright holders will follow the examples of the porn industry in terms of content monetization, or they will have to financially constantly feel like its actors.
The paintings, drawn in the usual stories about intellectual piracy, widely exploit the image of a hungry poet who cannot receive adequate compensation for his work and talent. This image is incredibly emotionally strong, especially taking into account the fact that this position is taken not only by representatives of copyright holders (large labels and corporations), who can not be convicted of malnutrition, but also by real authors and artists. And with their talent they proved the right to their own opinion.
However, I believe that this point of view is erroneous. By the way, many supporters of the reform of the copyright system think so. Therefore, I will not give all the theoretical arguments in this regard, but try to prove the fallacy of the position of classical copyright by example.
And this example lies in the word, because of which (let's honestly admit), many have opened this post, - porn. We will not pay attention to the legality and morality of this content. We isolate (I specifically chose this word) only part of the monetization of an intangible asset. After all, porn is exactly the same audiovisual work as any video or movie. And in the case of some clips, confusion can occur even on the semantic content.
An analysis of some aspects of the monetization of this specific content reveals the nuances of the development of modern copyright.
First, the porn industry is booming. Billions are spinning there. At the same time, porn is not protected by law as harshly as other content. The industry was able to accumulate huge cash flows without having to put someone in jail for 5 years for illegally using Sasha Gray's photograph in his demotivator. It would be a mistake to say that all this money is illegal like drug trafficking. I think that if explicit and absolutely illegal content, such as real violence or involving minors, is excluded from the statistics, the amount of money in the industry will be colossal: as the chaste Wikipedia indicates, The figures are in the region of 10 billion dollars annually. It is more than the sports and music industry combined.
Has anyone heard of a hungry porn director?
But seriously, the reason, in my opinion, is that, without state support, the industry was forced to build relations with the market on an equal footing. This led to the fact that:
(a) there is a huge amount of free content that makes money through an advertising model or serves as a decoy to paid content;
(b) along with advertising, a widespread subscription model;
(c) the price of content is much lower than in the media industry. Often, downloading a song or buying 1 movie is more expensive than getting a monthly subscription to some indecent resource (I don’t understand how moral advocates overlooked it);
(d) a significant amount of content in a short time passes from the category of paid to free (the language does not dare to call it the public domain), replaced by new products.
All these trends can now be seen in the classic copyright, but they are seriously slowed down by the Dutch copyright disease. The essence of this disease is in the corruption and weakening of the economy due to cheap and excess resources. In this case, such a resource is state support.
The police and the courts that guard the classic media industry play the role of a temporary dam for brewing change. The whole power of a huge army of lobbyists, lawyers and officials is focused on the possibility of ensuring the clearly archaic right of the copyright holder to prohibit someone from listening to his music / singing his songs or watching his films if the user does not agree to the conditions put forward by the copyright holder. In other words, there is a struggle for the right of copyright holders not to listen to the market. But the trick is that the more the copyright holder relies on the state, the sooner it will fail in the market.
Rightholders should learn from porn. Not in the literal sense, but regarding the survival of the industry and pumping money out of the consumer. Either the copyright holders will follow the examples of the porn industry in terms of content monetization, or they will have to financially constantly feel like its actors.