Copyright Reform. What can be offered?

    The active discussion on Habré regarding copyright and related processes, which has been going on for more than one day, contains a lot of extremely logical, at first glance, theses. However, many of them, when analyzing, reveal certain contradictions that lead either to their ultimate emotional rejection, or give rise to even greater contradictions in the confrontation of copyright subjects or quasi-entities.
    I dare to introduce my “five cents” into the discussion. In order to bring a certain professional color to my point of view, I will characterize my professional affiliation: I have been working as a lawyer for almost five years, in my free time I am working on a dissertation on the subject of the theory of law and the state.
    I would like to start with the general characteristics of such a phenomenon as “copyright”, dwell on the most significant aspects that should be taken into account when determining the form of its regulation and indicate as a conclusion how I personally would change the current Russian copyright.


    In itself, “copyright” in the objective sense is a combination of legal norms governing legal relations related to the emergence and subsequent existence of various objects that are an expression of a person’s creative activity. Everyone is intuitively aware that copyright itself arose much later than human civilization. It is doubtful that the person who painted the deer on the rock forbade this to be done by his fellow tribesmen (unless of course some religious considerations were involved here). The first regulatory document associated with the emergence of positive (i.e. written) copyright Queen Anne Statute, adopted by the British Parliaments in 1710, which secured the exclusive right of the subjects listed in the Statute to the object of creativity, which were books, for 14 years.
    Such “man-madeness” (in contrast to such a right as “the right to life,” for example) of legal norms - copyright regulators allows us to conclude that copyright itself is not something initially defined. On the contrary, their change in one direction or another is a natural process that should take into account the current situation, namely the following:

    Economic aspect. Everything is quite clear with him - as was indicated in a recent post, from the words of the vice president of the United States “the creative impulse of America” is perhaps the main export item. Considered the relationship of the world economy with the dollar, the global significance of the process of creating a creative product is not in doubt.

    The legal aspect. It is based on two fundamental principles of a democratic society: the right to freely seek, receive, transmit, produce and disseminate information by any legal means and creative freedom. This also includes the protective function of law, aimed at protecting the rights and interests of all subjects of copyright.

    The technical aspect. The development of science and technology appropriate at a certain point in time, which allows reproducing, copying or transmitting the results of creative activity. In addition, in this case, the cost of creating a creative product is of great importance. Writing an average computer game in the early 80s was worth completely different money than it is now.

    Creative incentive aspect. This is how the current situation stimulates the author to create a new work. The state or public structures have the opportunity to create conditions under which the author will be interested in creating. This may be a financial reward, or recognition of merit.

    I think it’s easy to identify a number of significant aspects. But the idea is that all the elements that make up the essence of copyright as a legal phenomenon, and its actual embodiment, are closely interrelated.
    Errors, archaism in legal regulation or one-sided lobbying of the interests of certain groups lead to the consequences that we face today: the technical ease of copying and transmitting information leads to the fact that the legislative ban on counterfeit works of creativity is ignored by society. Attempts to one-sided actions, such as strengthening bans only lead to discontent and social tension. Authors and publishers are unhappy that no one pays for their works. Content users grin, update the torrent client and buy a new terabyte hard drive, and on Habré, to everyone’s joy, there’s a karmic discussion.
    The current copyright legislation is called "illegitimate", that is, illegal. Positivist slogans are heard right there that no matter what the law is, it must be enforced. But here you can give a very good, in my opinion, example of laws such as "all Englishmen over 14 years old are required to practice archery for 2 hours a week under the guidance of a local priest." There are plenty of similar “funny” laws from around the world on the net.
    Nevertheless, the balance sheet of interests of all its subjects should remain the basic principle of copyright. Is this possible? I think so. And the thing is this:
    No matter how science and technology develop, there will always be some complex or exclusive forms of performance of a work. You don’t need to go far for examples: even a large TV will not replace a cinema, especially 3D, nor any audio recording will replace a live performance of artists and so on. It is no coincidence that the economic potential of films is estimated at the box office.
    A book lover will buy a good book for a home library, and even computer games have found their own unique way of “playing” - an online game, which, if there is only a pirated copy, is not practical (banning a set-top box) or even impossible. Of course, some form of content distribution will be in jeopardy. Who needs a CD with hourly recording of a group - when you can download it from torrents in a few minutes. But maybe this downloaded disc will serve as an occasion to go to a concert and listen to a "live" sound? And the more popular the performer, the more expensive the ticket and the more people want to attend such a concert. The withering away of some forms of economic activity and their replacement with others is a completely natural process. Once the main export product was hemp, tar and hides, now oil and gas.
    Actual “free copying” of information should also be used for the benefit of society. How exactly, I will explain further.
    What form of optimal legal regulation of legal relations in the field of copyright do I personally see:

    1. Reducing the duration of the exclusive right to a work. Moreover, this reduction can be differentiated. So, let's say, a sufficient period for a computer program is 3-4 years. How many computers of this age are sold by the publisher? I think not a lot. The exclusive right to reproduce a work on a tangible medium can be retained by the author for a long time, but it is legal to find a digital copy of the work in the global network. Why not?

    2. Strictly distinguish the use of a creative product for personal and commercial purposes. Exercise strict control over the use of a creative work for commercial purposes. Two big differences, whether I use Photoshop to resize pictures with a digital dustbox or prepare photos for advertising spreads. Given the growth of freelance control, of course, is difficult, but it is possible to create a certain mechanism. The use of a pirated operating system by any "Yukos" is simply unacceptable. That is, entrepreneurial activity can also be differentiated.

    3. To expand the list of entities entitled to use copyright objects for free. Schools and universities should receive certain copyright objects at the price of the medium. This should also apply to socially vulnerable groups. Each person with disabilities should be able to obtain any copyright object at the price of the medium. If a person chained to a wheelchair can play all new games or watch films freely without special financial expenses - will this make him happier?

    But what to do with those who, for example, buy "embroidered" suit-boxes or download "screens". And do nothing. If a person prefers to watch a low-quality copy to the cinema, then there are certain reasons for this. The lack of a movie theater, peculiar aesthetic tastes or lack of money. Such consumption should be treated as well as copying books on sheets of paper, that is, it makes no difference. All the same, manufacturers will figure out how to make an entity with financial capabilities buy a licensed product or indirectly pay them (by viewing advertisements, etc.)
    As a summary, I would like to express the following:
    I think that at present the majority of copyright suits the situation. Periodically, various groups arise that try to protect their interests, but this is nothing more than informational noise. Like screams about violence in computer games. The farther, the bloodier and worse the games become. And most like it. Therefore, of course, you need to think about changing copyright laws. A situation in which most of the country are criminals is nonsense. But after all, not all Englishmen who have reached the age of 14 practice in archery for 2 hours a week under the guidance of a local priest. It is difficult to say how the situation will develop in the future. Pleased with the presence of political trends, such as the emergence of a "pirate party", with the goal of changing the current situation. But how will it be next - wait and see.

    In turn, I would very much like to hear the proposals of the participants, how exactly would they like to reform the current Russian copyright? And what, in their opinion, consequences did it entail?

    Also popular now: