A look at the problem of illegal distribution of content

The recent history of the blocking of the EX.UA website has caused a wave of discussion in the country of problems related to the observance of copyrights, the fight against piracy, and the means of legally distributing digital content. Even in popular political talk shows, this topic came to one of the first places.

I listened to these discussions and realized that this issue will not be resolved either now or in the near future. Everyone has their own legitimate interest, but all parties are trying to find a solution in the existing market system, and no one seems to see that digital content does not fit into the current framework of the existing relationship. I offer my view on the problems that hinder the legalization of the distribution of digital content.

Parable of fish

The whole system is based on the fact that one side has a need for something, and the other side is ready to satisfy this need. Under market conditions, an appropriate price is set that satisfies both parties. There is a fisherman who catches fish, and there are people who want to eat this fish. They agree with the fisherman - and buy fish from him. The fisherman is a getter, he knows how to get what the consumer needs, and efforts must be made, resources must be spent on this.

However, let’s imagine for a second that people would have some wonderful tool with which they could get an unlimited amount of the same fish from any one fish. It would be enough then to buy from the fisherman only one fish - and all of humanity would forever be provided with its stocks. Miracle! But this is exactly what we observe in the situation with the distribution of digital content. Modern digital technologies have made it possible to accomplish a real miracle in the field of dissemination of information resources. It seems like a miracle - it is always good, but let's look at the problems that have arisen using the example of fish.

Suppose we can clone fish without a price, but nothing happened with other goods. And then what comes out? Will someone buy fish from a fisherman? Of course not! Will the fisherman then catch the fish? Not. After all, he must somehow earn a living. And people also have a problem: no one wants the same fish endlessly, they say that you can catch something more tasty ... Make the fisherman go on months-long searches for new fish? And who exactly will pay for this one new instance? After all, an expensive fish will come out. Pay a fisherman for every cloned copy? But why? The neighbor already has a new fish, we both have cloning machines ... Why else should anyone pay something? And actually for what? And then why do we need a miracle, if we need to pay everything, as before? What then turns out? There is a miracle machine

Back to the realities

Personally, I absolutely do not see a way out of the current situation in existing market methods. It is impossible to reduce the author and the consumer without outside interference. It is necessary to create some kind of new artificial system that would simultaneously provide income to the authors of the works, and would be understandable and reasonable for the end user. So far I only see that they are trying to convince consumers that they are simply obliged to pay, because it is moral. And that’s it. Personally, it causes me a complete rejection.

If you buy an e-book or a movie, or an audio recording in an online store, then a whole cloud of completely unnecessary intermediaries earns on this. They really are not needed. Any author can distribute his works through the network, and only one centralized catalog is needed from intermediaries.

Also the problem is in the price itself. The factor of the possibility of virtually cost-free cloning of any work - a modern miracle - makes existing prices completely inadequate. There are many online enthusiasts who provide access to simply huge repositories of content - do not re-read, read, do not review. The same student to perform a term or diploma work must shovel a whole mountain of literature. And why should a person who, for example, wants to find a new direction in fiction? How can you limit people's access to these limitless possibilities, if it does not require absolutely any resources? The price of electronic works must be cheap, only then you can pay for them, and this will not limit the freedom of access to information.

What then should the authors pay? Redistribute resources, organize special funds, pay authors according to their popularity ... People are willing to pay for access to information, but it should be understood that the volumes of this very information that they pass through themselves have long exceeded those units of works that they can afford to purchase . Authorities must understand that without creating a new system, the content market cannot be legalized.

Also popular now: