Street Performer Protocol Model - Possible Piracy Solution
Rereading some topics of the Copyright blog , among holivars to combat piracy, I noticed references to such ambiguous entities as “All information should be free!” ( LaggyLuke citizen wrote well in this topic) and "How do authors get rewards for their work?" Supporters of the first thesis in defense of piracy and downloading content from torrent-like services instead of buying licensed media cited the fact that the bulk of the money from the licenses goes not to the authors at all, but to the copyright holders (publishers, studios, etc.). And indeed it is. A totally free content would really negate the problems of piracy and the unfair enrichment of copyright holders who have nothing to do with creativity. But here the second thesis comes into effect: "How do authors get rewards for their work?" Creativity for the sake of creativity is good, but I also want to eat. The lack of material incentive will not make the content better and it is difficult to realize all your creative potential, being distracted by the "main" work.
The solution, as always, was somewhere in between.
I came across an interesting model: Street Performer Protocol . There is no Russian page on Wikipedia for this concept, so I will try to selectively translate and convey the essence of the model.
In this model, the author announces that he will give his work (book, music, video, program - it doesn’t matter) for free access after receiving a certain amount. Those who are interested in this material transfer funds to the author’s account with some reliable intermediary. When the required amount is accumulated, the money is transferred to the author, and the work is transferred to the Public Domain (public domain). If the amount could not be collected for a certain time, then the money is returned to the payers. And what about the author - his business. It is understood that the author has some kind of reputation. If he has already established himself as a good creator, then from time to time he can put a price higher, more people will pay him and more and more willingly. You can build a positive (or negative) reputation, for example, by publishing your works for free in the Public Domain.
Here is such a model.
A small indignation arose in my head: “Unfair! Some people pay, but everyone gets access! ” I will try to offer a solution. When transferring remuneration to the author, it is possible to give the work only to a paying group of people, and to share it only after a certain time. Time may depend on reputation, on the amount, this is the details. T.O. non-payers will receive less relevant material than those who spent the money. This will be an incentive to reward the author. You can come up with something else.
In my opinion, this model is the closest to taking into account the interests of both authors and consumers of works. Unnecessary 2 links are excluded from the chain “author-studio-user” or (as a rule) “author-studio-pirate-user”. When the author is popularized and creative growth, his income will increase due to an increase in the contribution, but the works will not become more expensive for a particular user, due to the growth of the author’s audience.
I would like to discuss what other advantages and disadvantages are hidden in this model and what hinders its implementation?
The solution, as always, was somewhere in between.
I came across an interesting model: Street Performer Protocol . There is no Russian page on Wikipedia for this concept, so I will try to selectively translate and convey the essence of the model.
In this model, the author announces that he will give his work (book, music, video, program - it doesn’t matter) for free access after receiving a certain amount. Those who are interested in this material transfer funds to the author’s account with some reliable intermediary. When the required amount is accumulated, the money is transferred to the author, and the work is transferred to the Public Domain (public domain). If the amount could not be collected for a certain time, then the money is returned to the payers. And what about the author - his business. It is understood that the author has some kind of reputation. If he has already established himself as a good creator, then from time to time he can put a price higher, more people will pay him and more and more willingly. You can build a positive (or negative) reputation, for example, by publishing your works for free in the Public Domain.
Here is such a model.
A small indignation arose in my head: “Unfair! Some people pay, but everyone gets access! ” I will try to offer a solution. When transferring remuneration to the author, it is possible to give the work only to a paying group of people, and to share it only after a certain time. Time may depend on reputation, on the amount, this is the details. T.O. non-payers will receive less relevant material than those who spent the money. This will be an incentive to reward the author. You can come up with something else.
In my opinion, this model is the closest to taking into account the interests of both authors and consumers of works. Unnecessary 2 links are excluded from the chain “author-studio-user” or (as a rule) “author-studio-pirate-user”. When the author is popularized and creative growth, his income will increase due to an increase in the contribution, but the works will not become more expensive for a particular user, due to the growth of the author’s audience.
I would like to discuss what other advantages and disadvantages are hidden in this model and what hinders its implementation?