October 18, 2009 at 12:28A look into the future: a possible way to combat Internet piracy through social welfare of citizens with the right to free download of works
I recently thought about the essence of piracy on the Web. We all know about negative factors.
But there is an important positive: art becomes the property of the masses. After all, not everyone can afford to buy everything that he listens and watches. And I'm talking primarily about young people 14-22 years old. Remember yourself. How much music we began to listen to in adolescence. I liked one group, and is already pulling next in this genre. And where does a simple 16-year-old young man get so much money to buy music? Not to mention films, games, and more. It would be enough to go to the cinema, sit in a cafe.
Here, piracy is morally justified - it performs a social function.
About adults - a somewhat separate conversation. Everyone has a job, most people watch and listen to new things not so much. Mostly. And they could afford to pay for the disks. On this we renounce adults - otherwise we will launch another holy war.
Now I will offer a hypothetical model that is impossible with a modern information infrastructure. So, it is necessary for the state to knock out the socially significant factor of pirates - to convey the culture to the masses of those who cannot afford it (youth).
The state may begin to distribute some grants to parents or directly to youth (it will be included in the social expenditures of budgets) so that young people, choosing and downloading music / films, give them to performers / publishers. Those, in turn, will receive money for this from the state. Creators receive money, competition among them remains - the engine of progress.
This is unlikely to drastically reduce p2p portal traffic. However, this will deprive them of the social component for which they should exist at the moment. On the other hand, it may teach people with adulthood to pay for what they download. Moreover, the state does not actually limit people. You can distribute these grants progressively (towards the end of the institute, gradually reduce their number), to various social groups (than the future: the unemployed gets the right to download 3 music albums, 2 films, for example) per month. And this will deprive the pirates of a noble halo. At least in part.
Moreover, if the creators of works start to receive “social” money (and the money does not smell), this will lead to a general decrease in the cost of their products. Which will also hit the pirates.
All this is of course interesting, but what is needed for such a scheme to work? There are young people in whose lives the Internet is integrated at a sufficient level. Remains:
1. Universal Internet access. The first swallow is Finland. Now there the Internet is a citizen's right.
2. The site. The only fundamental difference from conventional p2p portals is that an identity will be produced. This is a separate and controversial question - can the state be given such power over the Internet. How to implement this scheme without the state’s access to privacy, so that it is a simple viable design.
3. Actually, the state initiative. In general, it is beneficial for the state to pass such a law: the development of culture is important. If you do not run head on into protectionism, as with the benefits of lending for the purchase of cars. In a global world, that’s the same.
4. Implementation. Organize, convey to the public, educate.
That's the thought came. How do you like her?
UPD Gentlemen who are negative, write your criticism whenever possible. I am just studying and it is important to me for development.
But there is an important positive: art becomes the property of the masses. After all, not everyone can afford to buy everything that he listens and watches. And I'm talking primarily about young people 14-22 years old. Remember yourself. How much music we began to listen to in adolescence. I liked one group, and is already pulling next in this genre. And where does a simple 16-year-old young man get so much money to buy music? Not to mention films, games, and more. It would be enough to go to the cinema, sit in a cafe.
Here, piracy is morally justified - it performs a social function.
About adults - a somewhat separate conversation. Everyone has a job, most people watch and listen to new things not so much. Mostly. And they could afford to pay for the disks. On this we renounce adults - otherwise we will launch another holy war.
Now I will offer a hypothetical model that is impossible with a modern information infrastructure. So, it is necessary for the state to knock out the socially significant factor of pirates - to convey the culture to the masses of those who cannot afford it (youth).
The state may begin to distribute some grants to parents or directly to youth (it will be included in the social expenditures of budgets) so that young people, choosing and downloading music / films, give them to performers / publishers. Those, in turn, will receive money for this from the state. Creators receive money, competition among them remains - the engine of progress.
This is unlikely to drastically reduce p2p portal traffic. However, this will deprive them of the social component for which they should exist at the moment. On the other hand, it may teach people with adulthood to pay for what they download. Moreover, the state does not actually limit people. You can distribute these grants progressively (towards the end of the institute, gradually reduce their number), to various social groups (than the future: the unemployed gets the right to download 3 music albums, 2 films, for example) per month. And this will deprive the pirates of a noble halo. At least in part.
Moreover, if the creators of works start to receive “social” money (and the money does not smell), this will lead to a general decrease in the cost of their products. Which will also hit the pirates.
All this is of course interesting, but what is needed for such a scheme to work? There are young people in whose lives the Internet is integrated at a sufficient level. Remains:
1. Universal Internet access. The first swallow is Finland. Now there the Internet is a citizen's right.
2. The site. The only fundamental difference from conventional p2p portals is that an identity will be produced. This is a separate and controversial question - can the state be given such power over the Internet. How to implement this scheme without the state’s access to privacy, so that it is a simple viable design.
3. Actually, the state initiative. In general, it is beneficial for the state to pass such a law: the development of culture is important. If you do not run head on into protectionism, as with the benefits of lending for the purchase of cars. In a global world, that’s the same.
4. Implementation. Organize, convey to the public, educate.
That's the thought came. How do you like her?
UPD Gentlemen who are negative, write your criticism whenever possible. I am just studying and it is important to me for development.