Why should copyright holders live on donations?

    With this post, I would like to answer today 's donation study to the authors. Thanks to him, I was finally able to verbalize why I believe that in this war, pirates are more right than copyright holders. Anticipating the accusations, I will make a reservation: I regularly honestly buy a large amount of music, from time to time - books, and that is why I am fairly objective.
    The key stumbling block in the above study was the phrase:
    a book is not a commodity of prime necessity; you can live without it. 14% of the world's population do not know how to read, and nothing, live and breed.

    It is with this quote that I disagree most strongly. Books, music, cinema - in modern society, these are the same basic necessities as electricity and water. Yes, in Africa, many people at home have neither electricity nor clean water, 14% of people cannot read, not always there is a guaranteed secondary education - all this is no reason to reduce the mandatory minimum of the standard of living accessible to people.

    How does this relate to piracy and copyright? Do I argue with the assertion that the seller has the right to display goods at any price, as it should be in a market economy? Yes and no. Perhaps someone considers my demand to be too bold and contrary to some market and economic principles, but I believe that the author is obliged to sell books and music for any price - the one that he himself appoints.

    What's the Difference? In Russia, the law regulates the activities of stores, if a store puts up a product for sale, this is a public offer, anyone - even a French-speaking Negro - can come to the store and buy the product at the stated price. The Internet market is not at all like that. You may be denied service on a territorial or national basis, impose additional services (prohibited by Russian law, not prohibited in "civilized" countries), even erase a product already sold!

    How many years ago did regional restrictions appear on DVD 15? Woz and now there, Wikipedia even mentions a curious story with a disc donated by Obama to the British Prime Minister, who he could not see — the “wrong” region. I come to the online store to legally buy music and I get the answer: "Your credit card is issued outside the United States." “We do not sell this product in your country,” amazon.de told me when trying to buy a digital copy of the album. I can come to the country (if they give me a visa) and buy a CD, but the copyright holders refuse me the right to do the same on the Internet.

    Supporters of Mikhalkov, MPAA, RIAA, and other dissonant names say: "This is their right, this is the market." Not! All these “copyright holders” always talk about the desire to bring regulation offline from the Internet, so that people are responsible for their actions, laws work, and illegal copying is punished. Let's. Only first we bring to the Internet a real public offer. You offer a product, I come and buy. Then it’s mine - in accordance with Russian laws, I have the right to gut your DRM-protected book to work on my device, make a copy of the music to play on my player (and not just the iPod), transcode the video to a format convenient for me and cut advertising - if you, the copyright holders, for some reason did not. The truth is, in our country sometimes there are still excellent laws.

    If for some reason the copyright holder has stopped offering the book for sale, he considers it unprofitable to spend space on servers, he considers some country undeserving of his attention, just something is pricked in the left heel - the book is considered publicly accessible, those who were not given the opportunity to buy it may go and pirate. Yes, this is cruel and infringes on the rights of poor, ruining publishers (they, however, do not even hide that the money from the lawsuits will go not to the authors, but to new lawsuits). But in the XXI century, cultural objects are a matter of prime necessity. Point. Either the copyright holders offer the goods, or let them live on donates.

    Upd . Since in the comments some did not understand what I was calling for, I tried to put my whole idea into a short manifest, which, I hope, makes it clearer:
    0. This manifesto covers the dissemination of cultural property through digital distribution.
    1. Literature, cinema and music in the modern world are as much a human product as secondary education or utilities.
    2. Distribution of this product is both a right and an obligation of the author.
    2.1. The author has the right to distribute the product both personally and through any chosen intermediary (copyright holder).
    2.2. The copyright holder has the right to assign any arbitrary price to the product, set it different for different categories of people according to the attribute chosen by the copyright holder.
    3. The copyright holder does not have the right to artificially limit the ability to purchase a product to any category of people (restrictions on the territorial and national grounds, obviously impracticable requirements, such as the use of bank cards of a strictly defined country). If the pricing policy for some special category of people is not established, the product should be available in this category at a “base” price, working for all people without exception. The base price is the one that affects the largest number of buyers (for example, if the book is sold in three countries, the base price is the one at which the largest number of people currently bought it). The correct establishment of the current base price is the responsibility of the copyright holder.
    4. The artificial restriction of a category of people by setting a price that is obviously impossible for this category ($ 1000 for Zimbabwe with a base price of $ 10) is a deliberate violation of the idea of ​​content accessibility. In the event of a complaint, each such case must be dealt with individually by the regulatory body.
    5. The copyright holder has the right to differentiate categories of people by price, but not by type of product. Any version of the product should be available for purchase by any category of people. A Finnish boy has every right to buy a Russian edition of a Chinese film if he suddenly has such a desire.
    6. The lack of a product for sale for any category of people is the translation of the product for this category of people into public use and permission to freely distribute it by any means.

    Also popular now: