Intellectual property and copyright as it is is the worst thing that has happened to humanity! The parasites, hiding behind the alleged protection of the authors, have created another parasitic niche and a brake on development …
A couple of three years ago, I wrote and published an article on the essential aspects of the modern legal contradictions of the free exchange of information. It was published on a well-known torrent tracker that changed its address, but over time it disappeared. However, it was not bad and therefore spread over the Internet, from where I restored it. In connection with recent events, it is useful to remember this.
I can hardly be mistaken if I say that those who decided to read this post thought about the concept of intellectual property, etc. To my regret, all the talk "about this" is extremely superficial. And so I decided to publish my reflections, which I hope will allow many to see the "root of the problem", which is a stone of anticipation and a bone of contention, and draw appropriate conclusions for themselves. I tried to present the problem from different, both philosophical and purely practical points of view.
1. Intellectual propertyis an unnatural concept in the real world. Almost all discussions are as far from reality as the discussion of the physiology of "enchanting horses in a vacuum." There is no such phenomenon or object in nature. The very concept of intelligence from the field of cognitive psychology and philosophy can in no way be associated with the legal formulation of property. There are a number of philosophical theories on this topic - see dialectics, materialism, epistemology, Descartes, Locke, etc. Whoever wants can read. But later I will explain why this is exactly the case with simpler examples.
A person is a social being and the main way of his development is to borrow knowledge and skills from other people or creatures. If he cannot borrow knowledge, then he cannot develop. How can the borrowing of knowledge be regulated?
Here's an example: a teacher worked with a child, and then he became a brilliant scientist, or a coach raised an Olympic champion. All this happened thanks to the transfer of knowledge. And if you look from the point of view of the law, does the teacher and the coach have the right to collect tribute from the student, from each of his success?
But smart people will say: what does the law have to do with it - this is the area of ethics. If a person is decent, then he will thank those thanks to whom he achieved success, morally and maybe even financially. This problem concerns every person - everything that a person has achieved, he achieved primarily thanks to his parents, even if they gave him only the appropriate genes. Is this intellectual property? Do parents have the right to demand that their children receive rewards from the transfer of "intellectual property" to them? This is an extremely important question for any person, but in practice it leads to a simple answer. If, among other things, parents were able to instill in children a sense of gratitude and respect, then the children will take care of their parents. This is the only thing that matters.
there is a nuance here, how do you think a person will be inclined to express gratitude if he is constantly reminded that he was given something and now he must return the debt after that?
2. I think everyone knows this story, but it’s not a sin not to remind. The myth of Prometheus… It appeared in time immemorial, but as if today it was composed about copyright holders and participants of sharing. Everyone remembers the plot? Fire was issued to Prometheus on the basis of a license agreement. Naturally, without the permission of the gods-copyright holders, it was not allowed to transfer it to third parties, who were called mere mortals.But Prometheus, in violation of the current legislation, guided by good intentions and love for people, committed an offense, for which he was sentenced to painful death by the judges, in order to intimidate those who want to disinterestedly distribute copyrighted objects of intellectual property. Read again the original of this famous story. Isn't it written about today's realities?
But what is important in this case is not the lyrics and beauty of the tale, but the principle of behavior promoted as the only correct and legitimate one. Do not share! If you have something, then in no case do not allow someone else to enjoy this benefit. "Love yourself, sneeze at everyone, and success awaits you in life." (C) The main thing in life is EGOISM. "Am I not worthy of this?" (c) In what world do we want to live - the world of selfish people or the world of selfless people who are ready to give something of their own, without asking to pay for their care in advance?
3 Legal aspect. Usually speaking of copyright, one understands the protection of CREATORS of intellectual property. But how many people know how much the authors really get? INCOME is received by RIGHT HOLDERS. Usually these are those who bought intellectual property rights from real authors for pennies. Buying an intellectual product, YOU pay not to the authors, but to those who want and do not hesitate to profit from the authors. Unfortunately, authors and businessmen are opposite in mentality. The first think about how you can make a good product, and the second about how much you can cook on selling it.
Yes, and not everything is so simple here, most authors do not invent a unique product from scratch. They study many ready-made products and make a new one, slightly modifying existing analogs. You can arrange lengthy litigation trying to find out who stole the idea from whom, but is it really necessary to live like that? Here one person heard another humming a melody, recorded it, played it himself and voila - the composition is ready, you can sell it. Who will receive the money? The one who knows how to sell will get the right money, not the one who composes well. Even worse, the one who originally sang is deprived of the right to sing his favorite song. But it would not be … with copyright - everyone would sing whoever wanted and what they wanted, and no one would have any complaints.
4 Economic aspect is one of the most important. We are constantly being told that copyright protection allows us to finance development and create new products, but is this really so in a global sense - because the improvement of one element does not always lead to an improvement in the whole. I am not aware of any cases where someone has been able to prove that copyright stimulates technological progress. But here's a FACT that it can slow down progress very well. There is something, and there is a person who finds out that it is possible to correct here like this and it will be better. He can do it, but it cannot. Modifications and improvements are prohibited. This is well known for the example of open source and closed source software. Fixing the found bugs in the first takes days, and in the second - years and it is not a fact that the bugs will be fixed at all in the current version. If you want a fix - buy a new version.
And if you think on a global scale, then this immeasurably increases the cost of competition - if you know how to do it better, you will have to invent a product from scratch. And at the same time, each element of this product, God forbid, should not be similar to an existing one. Total artificial increase in price and cost. Naturally, this is beneficial to the manufacturer-seller, but no one needs it except the copyright holder. Why reinvent the wheel five times to be able to change the bearing. Why did you develop MS media player and Explorer several times when there is already a free and better open source product? There is only one answer - to inflate the costs and say, well, you see, we didn’t just work for nothing - how much dough we swallowed - so pay us.
In this vein, we will also think about the ratio of price and cost. You will buy ten times refined gasoline 99, 999 marks for 500r liter. Unlikely. And the autocad for 106 thousand? And in smart products, the main point of business is to increase the price more. Why don't copyright holders want to sell products via the Internet without a box - a bare file (audio, video, software) and in parts (one track instead of 10, a 1 MB plug-in, instead of a distribution kit all in one weighing 1.5 gigabytes)? Why do you need it in a box? Why movies on disks are not compressed in MPEG4 but still sell DVDs in MPEG2. Because it's more expensive.
5 Question to the Federal Antimonopoly Service. You constantly listen to how the Federal Antimonopoly Service is fighting against monopolists: oil industry workers, cellular workers, etc. And they gnaw for a penny. But our respected producers of intellectual property are not monopolists? They are monopolists by definition. A cross-licensing agreement is a pure cartel conspiracy whose sole purpose is to eliminate competition.
How much does the operating system cost? There are two well-known ones - one costs $ 100, the other costs almost nothing. Why can you sell something that has a free analogue for 100 raccoons? Is this not an unreasonable overpricing. Or is the product a thousand times better? When our officials buy Ferrari and Lexus instead of vases and UAZs instead of vases and UAZs, it is considered a crime, and when they buy something for $ 100, 20 pieces for each school, at a time when it was possible to take a free analogue, is it not a crime on a national scale?
6 Support the poor employers and copyright holders. It is a recurring theme that copyright holders create thousands of wonderful jobs. If you are interested, calculate for yourself how many places they create in reality. And also, how many of these cool places would go missing with the disappearance of the copyright holders.
Another thing is important. At the same time, we constantly complain that in our country (and what is there in our country, in the world in general) too many officials are divorced. A paradoxical paradox - in one case, additional jobs is a blessing, and in another, it is harm. Why? They say officials (or rather state employees) live on the people's money, and those who work for the copyright holders honestly earn their bread and butter. What's the difference? If copyright holders are so dear to our state, then let them hire them. And the wolves are fed and there will be no need to chase every juvenile pirate. As unnecessary, you can reduce the defenders of copyright holders and catchers of copyright. It will be even more profitable for the state.
And if you look at which copyright holders our money goes, the difference between state employees and copyright holders becomes obvious. The lion's share of royalties goes directly abroad. But state employees spend almost all their income in our country, thus creating more jobs. That is, by protecting copyright holders, we are damaging our country. By eliminating the concept of "intellectual property", we only take out of work those who do useless work. Everything that needed to be invented has already been invented and written. If you need more, then there will always be investors in the face of the state, enterprises, wealthy people, and the Internet community. It is precisely those people who will disappear who create not for the benefit of people, but for the sake of profit. For some, it will be a tragedy not to receive a new dose of pop or vomit comedy. But it will pass with benefit. Maybe people will go to theaters more and read books.
I almost forgot. Try to find out from what sources of income the modern scientist lives. Very few people feed on royalties. Most scientists live on grants and participation in government or com projects. For most scientists, "intellectual property" does nothing.
7 Case from the history… Once upon a time there was a scientist (you will probably recognize his name), and he invented a transformer with which it was possible to convert an electric current and transmit it over hundreds of kilometers. Prior to this, the maximum distance (DC transmission) was less than 10 km. Now every device has a transformer. Without a transformer, we would not have electrical appliances in the house. Yes, no TV, but no computer, no phone. This scientist, as befits in such an advanced country as the United States, patented his invention. At first, competitors did not allow him to receive any funds from his invention, but gradually, with the help of a kind investor who agreed to invest money, the business went off. All there would be nothing, but one day an investor came and politely asked the inventor for a service - he did not have enough money to pay the inventor's royalties. Oddly enough, the inventor treated the investor with absolute understanding and said that they had done a lot for him. He is already glad that he has succeeded in bringing his ideas to life. So he will immediately forget about his rights to receive the dough.
Many will say that this is a fool, not a scientist. But this is probably exactly what a scientist should have done. But let's think what would happen if this scientist became like modern copyright holders, and said if you can't buy - don't use it. I would say, for example, for every watt of transformer power I require 100 ye. How much electricity would cost. And how fast progress would be.
In general, I expressed my opinion, and perhaps it will be interesting to someone. But decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong.
You can freely use this result of my intellectual work for any purpose.
PS Illustration for p 4
Is this advertising or is it true?
"Everything that he learns, from that we will gain everything."