Opinion: the publishing industry ignores the existence of Linux and Wikipedia

    imageWhen it comes to copyrights, the same thought goes on endlessly in discussions: "the work of the author must be paid." But this statement, to put it mildly, is contrary to the existence of Wikipedia and the experience of the owners of three billion smartphones, which means that it hardly falls into the category of truth.

    Repeatedly repeated statements that “the author’s work should be paid” involuntarily raise a no less acute question - and “how will the authors be paid for their work”?

    Moreover, this logical chain not only leads the discussion into a dead end, it causes a clear increase in disgust that arises as a result of futile attempts to defend against the copyright industry, because 99.99% of the authors of musical compositions did not receive a cent as a fee (it would be more correct to ask, as the author of the tracks or the composer will be able to earn a living in the conditions of the existence of copyright).

    However, the aforementioned issue and the assumption arising from it boil down to the fact that the goal of a monopoly on copyright is to provide a guarantee for the remuneration of authors. In fact, this is not so. Moreover, according to an open discussion on this subject, no culture, branch of science or technology can arise without a monopoly on copyright (or outside this industry).

    The purpose of the copyright monopoly is clear: it is clearly spelled out in the eighth article of the United States Constitution - "to promote the progress of science and the beneficial arts." It does not say about the opportunity to get rich or earn a living, or even get any kind of payment. On the agenda is exclusively beneficial to society. Remember - to promote progress, and by default it is supposed to make certain achievements accessible to everyone (otherwise what kind of progress is this?).

    Then there was the assumption - given the principles of the copyright industry - that the only way to cope with the task in all areas and disciplines is a kind of blocking of authorship by establishing a monopoly for a while. The initiative was supported, including by many officials.

    Thus, the copyright industry has two main clients: firstly, it sells to the state the idea of ​​its own unique ability to create cultural and scientific values ​​in exchange for a monopoly in these areas. Secondly, it is enriched by the distribution of monopolized copies of the achievements of culture and science to ordinary people, also in exchange for money. It is important to understand that the copyright industry deals with two different groups of consumers, and the first of them has every reason to revise the proposed dishonest transaction and to find a new provider of similar services.

    Linux and Wikipedia (as well as other, lesser-known brands) explicitly emphasize that the idea of ​​charging for successful development in the field of culture or science is clearly incorrect. Yes, in some cases this is justified, but in general, situations where all kinds of arguments were presented in favor of the need for a monopoly on copyright turned into the most ordinary nonsense.

    And these projects, free in every sense, became the basis for the Android operating system, which runs three billion smartphones and more than half of the world's servers created on various versions of the GNU / Linux operating system. Moreover, they support classical and specialized educational programs in all corners of the planet.

    According to the logic of the copyright industry, these projects simply should not exist, because no one paid their authors.

    Reality has shown that adherents of the copyright monopoly are deeply mistaken.

    It is worth explaining right away: the most common operating system for servers and smartphones, on which almost the entire IT industry is based today, was created outside the context of the copyright monopoly, since it never occurred to anyone to demand a fee for this. The largest source of knowledge, the resources of which are the basis of the educational programs of all universities in the world, was also developed without taking into account copyright protection, without setting as its task to earn extra money on the appearance of such a significant portal.

    This does not mean that you do not need to sell anything. Quite the opposite! It is important only to finally admit that while supporting the copyright industry, officials were mistaken in thinking that it was impossible to produce anything worthwhile without establishing a monopoly on copyrights. In addition, it is important to understand that business models based on free tools, even when it comes to culture and theoretical knowledge, are much more economically efficient than the manufacturing industry, which is still trying to sell useless round pieces of plastic to store information in while competitors transmit the necessary data worldwide in seconds.

    It's time for officials to stop sponsoring the idea of ​​a monopoly on copyrights, which supposedly are an essential condition for progress. It’s time to find a new service provider, and one who has not coped with the duties assigned to him - in this case, the copyright industry - is deprived of the right to vote on the upcoming choice. And more specifically, it is much more profitable for the state to completely abandon the concept of a monopoly on copyrights, because so many discoveries in the field of science and culture - and this is the same progress - have been made without such restrictions.

    In fact, the monopoly on copyright was not just unnecessary, it even prevented progress, undermined the economy and challenged the natural rights of citizens. Enough to repeat, like a parrot, "how will the authors be paid for their work?" The question has lost its relevance.

    Any model of legal business arises without any legal monopoly. Making money is good. But with the introduction of a monopoly, you lose such an opportunity that is clearly contrary to your rights. And then they lie, not blushing, proving the opposite.

    A source

    By tradition, there is a bit of advertising in the basement, where it will not hurt anyone. We remind you that due to the fact that the total network capacity of the Dutch data center in which we provide services has reached 5 Tbps (58 points of presence, inclusion in 36 exchange points, in more than 20 countries and 4,213 peer-to-peer inclusions ), until the end of this week we offer dedicated servers for rent at incredibly low prices .

    Also popular now: