​Analyze the game between websites and authors from the perspective of economics, and analyze the right of signature (veto) and priority from the perspective of legal affairs. …

Take advantage of cousin Dongfeng to discuss these two issues. The reason why I chose to write this post instead of coding is because I hope everyone can clarify and pay attention to some of the

Take advantage of cousin Dongfeng to discuss these two issues. The reason why I chose to write this post instead of coding is because I hope everyone can clarify and pay attention to some of the current problems.

Discussions can have substantive results, depending on whether the quality of the post is high enough. So I tried my best to make this post a high quality post, please correct me.

The following discussion is based on the current contract of each website, and does not discuss black history. (That is: excluding the contract of “entrusted creation” in which the recommendation will be priced, and the contract of “full copyright in the next life” of the old version to be modified by Zhulang)

The long summary is as follows:

1. Intrinsic motivation for websites to require full copyright

2. The internal game between the website and the author

3. The necessity of struggle

4. Focus issues in current contract practice

1. Why does the website require full copyright?

The relationship between the website and the author should be a win-win and cooperative relationship.

In order to save time to code words, here I directly quote a passage from Aunt Cyclair: @雲中cyclist“It can be discussed, but I will explain in detail why I think the increasing importance of copyright is due to changes in the industry model.

How did the website make money in the past? Why do major electronics, channels, advertisements, websites or companies enhance their value?

user? author? content? These are all uncertain, Tianya Niu? Tianya has released so many popular IPs, what does it have to do with Tianya? Tianya is still poor

But with the arrival of the new era, there is an opportunity, and that is the control of copyright.

In addition, it must be clear that many people’s interpretation of the contract is too emotional and personal, and the whole article is self-subjective, which is not recognized by law and does not conform to legal interpretation.

A website or company can enhance its value through the exclusive agency of copyright. This is far more reliable than how many readers it has on its platform and how many authors it has, and it has a greater weight on value enhancement. That is to say, copyright (in fact, it is only valuable copyright) has a very large and potential role in enhancing and amplifying the value of capital itself, so over the years, the control of copyright has become more and more strict.

This is the most fundamental change to the contract brought about by the change in the model, and it is also the initial desire of capital for copyright. “I can boldly predict:

At present, the benchmark contracts of most websites are full copyright contracts, and most new websites will follow suit in the future. Websites that only operate electronic copyrights can only be niche and will not become mainstream.

Because this copyright agency relationship is in line with the endogenous law of economics.

First, it is indeed the era of big IP with full copyright operation, which cannot be denied.

Both, the cooperation of the website as a copyright agent and author can indeed create a win-win situation. This win-win situation can create value and lay the foundation for cooperation.

So the authors don’t expect a “savior” to appear. Any website is profit-seeking, and its behavior must obey the laws of the market and the general trend of the market economy.

A brief summary: Copyright cooperation is the general trend, and it is inevitable for agents and authors to form a cooperative community based on copyright interests.

As for how much copyright to take away and the specific share ratio, it is an internal game. The outcome of the game depends on the power balance between the author (from Dashen to Pujie) and the website (from strength website to Pujie website).

2. The essence of the internal game between the website and the author

Essentially summarizing:

Websites trade traffic for value.

Authors trade content for value.

The website provides traffic as a way of asking for benefits in cooperation.

Authors claim their rights by providing content.

The outcome of the game on both sides depends on their respective strengths and means of negotiation.

Taking the PC side as an example, the starting point of a series of recommendations represented by the big push and the strong push has a very high value. I believe that the authors who have been on the big push have personal feelings. Taking the wireless terminal as an example, the editor-in-chief of Palm Reading and the omni-channel of reading are also very powerful recommendations.

The website uses these traffic introduction means as a bargaining chip to exchange value with the author.

The essence is that simple.

Authors decide who to work with by judging how much the site’s traffic provides value.

If you think the website cannot meet your requirements, you can choose not to cooperate.

Just to expand a few sentences: content is king or channel is king? This question determines the author’s status to a certain extent. It is difficult to have an answer to this question, but the game is relative. My cousin said that he should improve his negotiation ability, which is not wrong. @华表

3. The role and necessity of struggle

First of all, let’s be clear that struggle is useful. In a popular saying: seeking unity through struggle, unity will survive; seeking unity through compromise, unity will perish.

The reason why I choose to spend time writing this post instead of codewords is not because of how noble my morals are, but because I think that by awakening the masses, I can indirectly protect my legitimate interests.

The market economy never talks about morality, but only about interests.

Even if it is a great god, after the merger of the two heroes of the beginning and the creation of the world and the establishment of the reading group, from the perspective of the game relationship, their interests will be threatened to a certain extent.

This is determined by the endogenous relationship of the game, which is inevitable and does not require moral attack.

Here is an example.

The long-term contract of the starting point is essentially the binding of the author in exchange for the recommended resources. This is in line with the choice of rational people under market conditions. It is understandable. Please do not make moral criticism.

However, if the power of the website is too strong and there is no corresponding restriction, it will push the author into a prisoner’s dilemma: no matter what other people choose, choosing to sign a long-term contract can maximize the benefits! So all the prisoners chose to confess, and the authors who were eligible to sign chose long-term contracts.

In the worst case, all authors have signed long-term contracts, the recommended resources cannot be tilted, and there is no difference between signed and unsigned. The authors got nothing, but there was an extra spell on their heads. This is an extension of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. It may not be completely in line with reality, but it can reflect the cruel side of market laws.

Fortunately, the current situation is not so bad. So the author can still choose not to sign a long-term contract.

I’m just figuring out a worst-case scenario for the author.

Therefore, how to safeguard the author’s own reasonable interests is a problem that authors should think about. As a great god, he undoubtedly has more right to speak and dominates the power trend of the author’s side. (Of course, it doesn’t mean that throwing the street has no effect.) The situation of the great god is the same and different from that of ordinary authors. How to do it needs further thinking. But first of all, don’t ignore it. Therefore, I suggest that great gods or ordinary authors who wish to safeguard the reasonable interests of authors can show their faces and support when they see this post.

I paused the coding, and I have done what I can do, which is to post this post. At the same time, analyze the following fourth point: that is, the core of the current struggle.

4. The focus of the current contract: signature (veto) and priority

Points 1 and 2 above mainly discuss copyright issues, and point 3 discusses the necessity of fighting.

The fourth point discusses the current focus issues, focusing on practical issues from the perspective of legal affairs.

If you don’t fight for it, you will die; if you work hard in the wrong direction, it will be useless, and it will waste your enthusiasm.

It is undeniable that there are problems with the contracts of various websites at present, because China Literature Group affects the most authors. I will take the current benchmark contract of China Literature as an example. (Note: Longkong has contract sets for many websites, the address is here: http://lkong.cn/thread/1344498 , I would like to express my thanks here)

(1) Priority

This question is relatively simple, let’s talk about it first.

The first thing to admit is that for most partnerships, the establishment of priorities is relatively common.

Read the current benchmark contract here: http://lkong.cn/thread/1331658

To be honest, the priority clause of the current reading is not actually binding.

The so-called “one set of one set to death” argument does not hold true.

The so-called “priority”, interpreted from the perspective of law itself, refers to a right to obtain cooperation rights first under the same conditions. The so-called equivalent conditions naturally include contractually binding equivalence. If there are other websites willing to contract with more relaxed conditions and equal treatment, China Literature will naturally revise the contract accordingly.

If it is not an agreement like a long-term contract, in fact, under the current environment, the priority clause of the reading is very low in binding force.

What’s more, there is a “loophole” in the current clauses, and the reading text does not stipulate the number of words that need to be created for the next work. Taking a step back, the author can also end the contract with a medium article of about 50,000 words.

(Note: One thing to worry about is: if one day China Literature loses its leading position in the industry, this priority will become a hidden danger. If one day China Literature declines into a medium channel of the wave-by-wave level (black Mr. Zhang, hee hee) , another industry leader gave the same conditions, I still have to stay in Reading, is this reasonable?

From a legal point of view, this situation is both reasonable and unreasonable, and the issue of time and energy will not be expanded. And this is not the current focus of concern, and can be ignored for the time being. )

(2) Signing power (or veto power)

I think that is the key issue that needs attention at the moment.

It is undeniable that the current operation of reading is relatively humanized. When the author’s copyright is sold, the author needs to sign again for confirmation.

But it should be noted that capital and markets are immoral.

The reason why there is this link is to plug all loopholes from the root, rather than “sympathy” for the author.

After all, from the current contract, it has never been stipulated that the author has the right to veto the sale of copyright. If the author is unwilling to sell and the website is sold, it will be a more tangled case if it goes to court, and there is no one who will definitely win the lawsuit.

According to the agreement, the website has “the obligation to seek benefits for the author”. If the author can prove that the reading is obviously in breach of contract, the case will be won.

According to the agreement, Reading can be sub-authorized without the consent of the author. If the author cannot prove that Reading has obviously violated the above obligations, the case will be lost.

From this question, the authors are most worried about black box operations, opaque transactions, and unclear obligations of the website itself.

Longkong has a post before: http://lkong.cn/thread/1330104 , how to deal with full copyright from the perspective of contract practice, I would like to express my thanks here.

To solve the above problem is very simple, is to give the author the right to veto the transaction, and it is an unconditional veto power, which should be clearly written into the contract.

If the author is not satisfied with the price, he can unconditionally reject it and not transfer it.

I don’t think this is an excessive requirement for a website. In the long run, if a company wants to develop well, it must rely on a sound system, and it should not allow the existence of insiders and black-box operations. The work is the author’s child, and giving this power to the author can also play a supervisory role. If it can be clearly written into the contract, I think it is in line with the basic concept of win-win cooperation and is a win-win progress. In fact, the interests of the website will not be damaged in any way.

Regarding the issues that Mr. Zhang is worried about, for example, the author engages in reverse shady, insists on granting copyright to friends at a low price, or does not cooperate without selling to friends. I don’t think this kind of worry is necessary. After all, the website itself has been sub-authorized, and it will not be sold if it is a big deal.

I think a website can have “limited veto power”, that is, when the author seeks relevant channels, but the price is significantly lower than the market price, the website can choose not to sell. This veto power should be limited, and the website should have the burden of proof.

above. Discuss with everyone. Hope for rational discussion, don’t make moral criticism. Go away and code~

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *