Blocking sites: How to please everyone?

    Over the past year there have been dramatic changes in the field of free access to sites, laws that have been issued have both supporters and opponents, inside I propose solutions to the problem that everyone is already tired of - What to do with site blocking.

    Why block sites?

    Locking is bad, information should be accessible to everyone and everyone - 90% of the IT community thinks there, but let's put ourselves in different positions and think about what can be changed.

    Why does the state need this?

    1) Limitation of undesirable information from the target consumer
    2) Limitation of information that may lead to consequences - inciting ethnic hatred, etc.
    3) Reducing the number of drug addicts - eliminating the public availability of information about drugs and methods for their acquisition

    Why do copyright holders need it?

    1) Getting more money due to blocking your content and withdrawal from public access

    Why do parents need this?

    1) Protecting children from unwanted information

    What do providers need?

    1) The ability to shift responsibility from oneself to the side that really should bear it

    Why do people with higher education and / or a stable psyche need this ?

    - absolutely no need

    And what do we have in the end?

    It turns out that only copyright holders have the basic substantiated (at least slightly) requirements from a legal point of view.

    The requirements of the state and parents are psychological in nature.

    To continue the discussion, as you know, there are now a huge number of horror series, movies and games that, if used by people with an unstable or fragile psyche, can lead to bad consequences, but no one can take them away, and all by the fact that there there is a gradation in age, it is believed that if a person has reached 18+ or 21+, then he can already think himself soundly and evaluate the situation.

    And let's transfer such a scheme to the Internet so that everyone would win, the State, Parents, Users, Rightholders and Providers.

    And what needs to be done?

    From the list above, we realized that the mandatory list of locks - only a list from copyright holders, all the others - only protect the fragile inner world of the subject.

    As a result, it would be necessary that when connecting to the Internet with the provider, the user was turned ON by default a filter from everything that is being filtered now, that is, all current registries.

    But when entering a blocked site, the user received messages saying that by calling the provider, identifying himself, he would be able to turn off filters for his Internet connection and that he understood that the responsibility for filtering content for him and the children would henceforth be carried out by any user accessible to him method.

    Why will everyone be happy with this?

    Why does the state need this?

    In 60% -80%, voluntary blocking of inappropriate content will continue to work, so the state does not lose control.

    Why do providers need this?

    If the user has the state filter turned on and he finds forbidden content that he considers unacceptable - the provider offers to discuss this with government bodies and registries.

    If the user has disabled state. filter and he saw inappropriate content, the provider offers to enable state. filter or set your own if the user is not comfortable with the official one.

    Why do copyright holders need it?

    Their law does not apply - everything suits them.

    Why do parents need this?

    The parent can either leave the state block by giving the state the opportunity to moderate the content, and also choose another provider of filtering services, with an expanded selection of groups and options for blocking.

    Why do people with higher education and / or a stable psyche need this ?

    People will be able to refuse state blocking of sites.

    My personal opinions on what to do with the copyright holders, so that the wolves are fed and the sheep are safe, are set out just below.
    What to do with copyright holders?
    Контент признается пиратским только если:
    1) Правообладатель покажет, что контент находится в быстром и простом доступе за адекватную цену на веб-ресурсе (адекватная цена — ниже коробочного диска)
    2) Оплатить данный контент возможно с помощью не менее чем 5 популярными платежными системами
    3) Доступ к контенту возможен на мобильных устройствах
    4) Контент предоставленный правообладателем в таком же или в лучшем качестве чем пиратская копия
    5) Контент доступен в России

    Почему это будет работать? — посмотрите на, iTunes Store и на многие другие ресурсы, пользователи готовы платить если доступ к официальному контенту более простой либо по уровне сложности не превышает доступ к пиратской копии.

    По многочисленным опросам на хабре было понятно, что если правообладатели смогут так-же оперативно предоставлять лицензионный контент как и пираты, по адекватной цене (Хотя бы как в iTunes Store/ в качестве не ниж 1080P то потребители будут пользоваться лицензией, потому, что это проще, удобней и лучше.

    Only registered users can participate in the survey. Please come in.

    How do you feel about the possibility of voluntary cancellation of site blocking?

    Would you buy licensed content if copyright holders complied with the rules described above?

    Also popular now: