Once again about copyright, or freedom in everything

    How do we buy movies, music or programs now?
    We pay for the purchase of a copy, which they are trying in every way to protect from further copying.

    I note that the situation with the programs is separate and much closer to what I want to talk about - they have been monetized for a long time by the models of trial use, voluntary contributions, money back and others, which allow you to decide whether you need to buy them.

    With films and with music, the situation is more complicated - at best, there are companies involved in their sale, and you find yourself attached to this company, buying a work through it.
    Moreover, if you bought a copy with a digital tag that gets somewhere, even by accident, you may be presented with a complaint.

    And let's imagine for a moment that the distribution of the material will be free , and it will not be necessary to pay for the copy, but only for the personal right to use the work, and valid around the world?

    What is the benefit: you can download the movie from where it  is convenient - at least from a file hosting service, at least from a torrent, at least by copying a disc from a friend.
    The concept of "pirated copying" will disappear.

    I believe that people will, sooner or later, consciously pay for the content that they want to use, and such a system will work.
    Actually, with all the availability of torrents, they buy films, music, and programs now.

    What will change is that the file sharing will become completely legal, and the purchase will be voluntary and, therefore, more conscious.

    The principle is simple - first you buy the right to use at full cost, evaluate and:
    - if you like, leave it to yourself, knowingly supporting the manufacturer;
    - if you didn’t like it, you return the money, depending on the elapsed time of use.

    I understand that it sounds slightly futuristic, but I propose to discuss the fundamental possibility of such an approach, including from a technical point of view, and its pros and cons.

    Further details, add in the comments, if I missed something.

    Small clarification.
    It is only about electronic information - because it does not spoil the "presentation", and that it can be copied completely in its original quality.
    Commercial use also does not apply to this topic - it is separately determined by contracts.
    And I’ll pay a little more attention to films (and music along with them), since the principle of "try and buy" has long been applied.

    So, in my opinion, what is needed for this:

    1) A global account for everyone.

    It says that I, the owner of the account, bought the personal right to watch these films / listen to songs / use programs, etc.

    Not anonymous. Its meaning is to easily prove that the right belongs to me.

    The account should not depend on any company or country, it should be available wherever you need to prove my right to use.

    For maximum reliability and independence, the base should be distributed and decentralized.
    Today, P2P gives this opportunity.
    More reliable technologies will probably appear in the future, so there should be the possibility of transferring data to the new system (for some time it will operate in parallel with the old one).

    A clear confirmation of the existence of a global system - Bitcoin.

    As with a regular drive, viewing with friends is considered a personal use.
    If they like, they can buy their own licenses.

    2) Separate sale of localizations and additional versions.

    Video, audio, and other content are bought separately.

    For example, if I want to watch a movie in additional languages ​​(if a translation has already been made), then I just pay extra for these tracks, sound, video, etc.
    An alternative translation came out - I buy it and watch it.

    The "directorial version" has been released - I buy at a discount if the usual one has already been bought.

    The same with paid localization of programs, including games.

    3) Quality improvement with the advent of new technologies.

    I consider it wrong to introduce a mark-up for quality levels.

    At the time of release of the film by the producer, the license simply covers the maximum released quality.
    Downgrading for the sake of discounts is artificial and will only create confusion.
    It is better to set a reasonable price immediately for maximum quality.

    If in the future the film will be restored or converted into new formats - UltraHD, 3D, “48 FPS”, etc. - then release them as additional versions.
    It does not pay for the high quality itself, but the cost of the transfer process into it.

    - if the film has already been purchased earlier in the previous format, only the updated track is bought - video, sound, etc.;
    - if the film was not bought, the license for improved quality automatically includes all formats of lower quality.

    Another example: a film from a film was digitized by 2 different studios, and there are 2 different versions.
    I buy, look, compare, and leave the one that I liked more, and for the second I return the money almost completely (almost because I used it for a while while comparing).

    They can take advantage of this, gradually releasing more and more “super-high-quality and super-new” options, but I think such unscrupulous manufacturers will quickly become obvious and stop buying them.
    Competition and a refund system will allow you to choose the normal ones.

    4) Refund in case of refusal.

    Everything is simple.
    Changed his mind almost immediately - the full price is returned.
    The later refused, the lower the return.

    You can buy again for the balance that was returned at the beginning.
    After some time of use, the returned balance reaches zero, and the film becomes purchased for unlimited viewing - just like if you buy a disc and can watch it as much as you like.

    The full repayment period can be set relative to the length of the work - sufficient for a decision on a full purchase.
    As an option: 3 weeks for a 3-hour film.
    I think the balance should decrease linearly so that you can safely evaluate the correctness of the purchase.

    It is impossible to refuse the already purchased time of use.

    For programs where there is no “viewing duration," the evaluation period can be set by the author - similar to how it is done now in shareware.

    5) Storage systems and media.

    The most obvious storage method in this case, in my opinion, will be torrents, as a reliable distributed storage.
    Or what will replace them.

    In case there is no distribution left with a copy of the work, there should be digital libraries.
    For payback, downloading from them can be either not free (but not expensive), or for watching ads.
    Online viewing is also possible.
    Payment in both cases will only be for the use of equipment for storing a copy and for transferring it to you, plus an extra charge.
    It will be disadvantageous to make large margins, as there is an alternative to free distribution in the form of torrents.

    In addition, libraries can be supported by the state - it seems to me that it will be more profitable than chasing download torrents.

    Or you can buy a copy recorded on physical media, if you want to always have your own at hand, for reliability.
    At the same time, it is the cost of the film on this medium that is paid.
    You write yourself to the drive yourself - you do not pay anything.
    You buy industrial quality - you pay for a disk.

    At the same time, there will be fewer disks and they will become more expensive, but then again, raising prices too high will be unprofitable, because everything is already available freely.


    People bought, buy and will buy what they like.
    To have "your piece."
    Just the cost should be adequate.

    They also buy and will buy because when you start earning on your own, you quickly realize that good things appear not just like that, but by the labor of the same ordinary people, which must be paid for so that they appear further.

    Often they download for free to evaluate before buying, because you can’t return the money if you don’t like it.
    With such a system, it will be possible to return the money.

    Almost any content can be freely obtained now, and it can also be obtained with any opposition to this - the more they try to limit distribution, the more copies will appear.
    Violence has never led to anything good.

    So does it make sense to forcibly limit distribution?
    Isn't it easier to believe in conscience? We are all ordinary good people.

    For authors, the advantage of such a system in comparison, for example, with payment after a trial period is to receive part of the money in any case.
    But if frank trash is released, they will immediately refuse it, and this part will be miserable.
    That is why the evaluation period should be set long enough.
    And if the author releases trash all the time, they just stop buying it at all , no longer looking .

    Such a system would make the content more famous and therefore increase sales.
    And it would contribute to the emergence of quality content, because it would be liked more, and it would have been bought more.

    Public storage systems would become the norm.

    In my opinion, many problems would be solved.
    What do you say, Khabrovites?
    Would you not buy under duress, but only because you yourself wanted to buy?

    And what do you think about the possibility of such a system?

    Also popular now: