Copyright holders vs users: compromise

I would like to try to formulate how a compromise between owners / producers of entertainment content and consumers might look like.

The confrontation between the "pirates" and the holders of the rights to the content (primarily entertainment) looks like this today.
On the one hand, owners of rights to content (usually huge corporations) who own rights to works:

• these corporations try to trade information in the same way as they trade in tangible goods, i.e. to sell each copy for such a price, as if it should be produced every time at the factory, although at the moment it is possible to trade content without any media, which means that with an increase in sales volume the cost of the copy decreases i.e. Now the price for the consumer is quite high, you need to pay for a unit of content, which is not very convenient.
• owners of rights are very intractable with those who want to trade their content, many fail to agree with everyone (plus if they manage to agree with other restrictions, for example, by country), and the convenience of the consumer requires the ability to receive any content from one point.
• the content distribution policy is also not aimed at user convenience, content is released in different countries at different times (not very clear discrimination by country of residence), in addition, for example, films are first shown in cinemas and then on other media, which infringes those who wants to see a novelty at home and is even ready to pay for it.

On the other hand, “pirates”, who for financial and / or ideological reasons using modern technical means provide the opportunity to find any content in one place (on one torrent tracker or website with online viewing) i.e. access to content is convenient (a couple of clicks), new items appear quickly, the assortment is extreme (you can find the most incredible things that you have nowhere to buy), as we see the difference not only in the payment.

Those. I, as a user, would be glad to consume honestly purchased content, but the price should be adequate, and the assortment is complete - if you really pay, then there’s no need to look anywhere else.

From my point of view, a compromise solution is needed here, which has been talked about a lot lately, but under empty pretexts (closing the cinemas if it did take place is not a tragedy at all, since they are not needed, then it’s time to go back in time - the real estate is liquid, but I don’t think that cinemas will die out, just as the radio didn’t disappear after the appearance of television, although their number will obviously decrease, and there’s no point in discussing the remaining arguments). The solution should be user-friendly, make piracy worthless, and allow copyright holders to make money.

It is clear that there should be no taxes (on the Internet, on blanks), this issue is clearly outside the tax sphere.
It should be possible, in addition to an Internet connection agreement, to conclude an agreement on access to all entertainment content. A monthly subscription should be comparable to the cost of the Internet, but rather cable TV (it should be understood that a person even with continuous consumption of content will not be able to consume it more than 24 hours a day, but in reality much less), access should be unlimited from all devices of the paying subscriber (perhaps they will need to be registered in your account confirming with an SMS code) and his family members, the interface should probably be similar to the Popcorn Time interface - log in and watch / listen / read what you want.

Perhaps it will be possible to make two tariffs - cheaper with advertising and more expensive without advertising.
Another version of the tariff plan - you pay more - news immediately, less - news will have to wait.

Copyright holders should receive a share of the money collected in accordance with the frequency of use of their content (to limit markups, you can take into account no more than a certain number of views from one subscriber), the funds should be allocated state organization that will support the work of the registry of copyright objects (state torrent tracker). The distribution should be as transparent as possible, although this still needs to be considered how to ensure it.

Thanks to the availability of authorization, tricks that decide to pay one month and try to pump forward for a year can be tracked, and perhaps reasonable limits on the download speed will not prevent honest users, and such tricks will make senseless, well, new content appears, it is convenient to have constant access.

The copyright holder may not distribute its content through a single registry (it can be sold by any means), but in this case it is deprived of the right to protection against piracy in the country. By the way, those who distribute content through a single registry should not have a ban on other distribution channels - maybe someone does not want to pay a monthly fee, but wants to buy separately. Naturally, such a scheme does not prohibit the creation / distribution of content according to a scheme with voluntary donations, each copyright holder is free to choose according to which scheme to distribute his work.

And only after such a convenient way for the consumer is created to legally consume entertainment content, you can actively fight pirates, block and punish the pirates themselves, fine users, but I think with this choice the majority of users will prefer not to violate the law, now almost everyone violates this usually means that something is wrong with the law.

I’ll clarify that this applies only to end consumers, and does not apply to those who make money on this content - there are special agreements with them.

Also, it is only about entertainment content - software, scientific or other special information is a separate conversation.

PS maybe (if there will be a lot of feedback) then I will transfer this text to my github so that it would be more convenient to work with it collectively, maybe it will work outthe scheme of which Mikhalkov spoke .