Post #50,813
9/6/02 10:01:36 AM
|
Alternative to copyright as we know it
Hello all!
Something has been brewing in the back of my head, and now it bubbles over into this forum.
I've been thinking of the way an artist extracts money from his work. Screw the middleman for the moment - let's think of an artist.
After one creates something, he/she theoretically has an option to record it, publish it, hang it on the wall and collect money from every soul who takes time to read/view/watch/listen to it for as long as he/she lives and then some.
But what happens in reality? The artist is not going to stand watch over his/her creation, suing every violator. Instead, a middleman is found, the creation is sold for some cash and may be some measly percentage, and now we have a huge corporation pocketing money for what an artist created.
Now, as Muad'dib said, you only own something if you can destroy it. There is only one moment when an artist can destroy his/her creation. That's when it's still unreleased. When it's out - it's out. And nowadays, with digital copies - it's out for good. There is no economic chokepoint after release.
On the other hand, the advent of Internet made communications much easier. Ordinary people can now organize themselves, and, with a little help from a place like e-Bay, even move money/goods around.
When I combine these two factors (money-free copying and ease of organization), I get the following idea: what if the artits says: "Here is a teaser of my new work. I'll release the rest when I get enough money." Now it's fans' turn to chip in. When the artist thinks he/she got enough - the work gets released to public domain, to be accessible to those who paid and those who did not alike. What do you pay for? For speed. If you don't send your 5 bucks, the work may not be released as quickly. Or not at all. For example, I would gladly pay for the next installment of LOTR. I want it, and I don't care who else gets to see it, as long as I can get it.
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #50,815
9/6/02 10:15:46 AM
|
Stephen King tried it
Freeloaders killed it. Despite comparison to OSS I think entertainment is fundamentally different. With software you can buy it once and keep using it. With entertainment, after you've seen the movie/read the book you're going to want a new one. With software you can amortize expenditures. With entertainment, you have constant churn inherent to the product.
Also, entertainment/art is[1] a luxury. Software is a tool that you ca use to make money. So paying for OSS development can yield return on investment.
[1] According to most people.
===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #50,817
9/6/02 10:21:12 AM
|
Exactly why I am suggesting my way
Churn works my way. Every month a writer is holding anothe chapter for ransom. Pay up or you'll never see it. After the writer is paid - who cares about freeloaders?
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #50,822
9/6/02 10:35:43 AM
|
That is exactly what Stephen King tried
He wound up proving his ownership in the way that you initially suggested - he destroyed the rest of his work.
Cheers,
Ben
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
-- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002)
|
Post #50,824
9/6/02 10:44:52 AM
|
Well...
in all honestly, the system would never work UNLESS that happened enough to let people know the artists were serious about it... so after a fashion, the experiment did work, because King stopped publishing because people wouldn't pay. In short, the freeloaders ultimately lost out.
It did not, however, work in the way Mr. King had hoped it would.
If enough artists hopped on board, the system might actually be workable because freeloaders would then be faced with never having a complete book to read through, ever... but most artists don't like the idea of destroying something they took a great deal of time to create, and as an artist myself I can't really blame them. So ultimately, I don't think it would work out.
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #50,826
9/6/02 10:57:04 AM
9/6/02 10:57:48 AM
|
Not quite destroying.
Not releasing. If you feel that money is no longer a concern for you, if your creative spirit wins over - go ahead, release it.
It simply takes the power from bisnessmen and cops and returns it to the artist. Or so I hope.
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Edited by Arkadiy
Sept. 6, 2002, 10:57:48 AM EDT
|
Post #50,835
9/6/02 12:31:59 PM
|
Ok, not quite
but if the artist DOESN'T hold back his art, then the system doesn't work. Thing is, artists usually create art because they want others to see it.
So, that pretty much sucks a lot for an artist trying to get the system off the ground. Invest a lot of time creating art no-one will see, until the freeloaders come around. An artist is going to be predisposed to let other see it, hoping it'll give 'em publicity, and there won't be the negative re-enforcement the freeloaders need.
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #51,079
9/9/02 10:07:28 AM
|
I'd say it's the other way around...
It sucks for the artist to create art for free while s/he's getting off the ground. And then, after a crowd of supporters has been accumulated, you don't have to hold back your art - people will pay for it. I would pay for Help Desk or User Friendly or Dilbert if you folks threatened to withhold them.
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #50,838
9/6/02 1:02:26 PM
|
If it would work . .
. . and I doubt it would, especially if Stephen King couldn't make it work, it would perpetuate a "Star system", where famous names could rake in prepayment but new talent wouldn't stand a chance.
What is needed is a new distribution system where artists could be assured a larger percentage than under the current system. It must allow for inexpensive promotion (and bias against "big money" promotion) to allow new artists to generate buzz.
It would seem the Internet would be the engine to make this possible, but so strong is the ethic of "the Internet makes everything free" I doubt enough volunteer programmers could be found with any interest in making sure artists get paid.
All this means someone with both vision and money would have to finance development (with the hope of getting richer, by skimming the transactions) for any new distribution system.
Artists working with physical items (pottery, paintings, jewelry, furnishings, cloths) can market direct to their clients using the Internet, partially bypassing the galleries and botiques (watch for galleries and botiques to include a "no Internet sales" clause in contracts).
Writers and musicians are pretty much stuck with the current unsatisfactory system because they are neither programmers nor experts in payment systems.
*****
What's the difference between a musician and a 14" pizza?
(A 14" pizza can feed a family of 4).
*****
What do you call a musician with no girlfriend?
(homeless)
*****
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #50,844
9/6/02 1:17:00 PM
|
"No Internet sales" clauses are doomed to fail
Both US law and standing caselaw are clear. If I sell you something, you have the right to resell that in any damned way that I want. Attempts on my part to change that with clauses saying that you can't are unenforcable.
This is why software companies like licenses so much. Because they haven't sold anything they therefore are not bound by inconveniences like the Doctrine of First Sale.
Cheers,
Ben
PS I don't think that there is money for musicians in selling music on the net. But there should be plenty in people paying for concerts...
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
-- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002)
|
Post #50,848
9/6/02 1:27:07 PM
|
The reason that King's experiment "failed"...
...wasn't lack of money - he apparently made a fairly tidy sum off of the chapters he did release.
What killed it was his own requirements - that a certain percentage of the readers pony up the money, instead of a goal amount. Now, that's certainly within his rights, but anybody going for this kind of system needs to realize that there will be many freeloaders out there - and their goal should be to make enough money for their own needs, not to guarantee that a certain percentage of the users of their product actually pony up for it. By putting an arbitrary percentage on it, not only do you limit yourself ("Hey! I got 66% readership payments of $5 each! That's $10 dollars! Better pony up that next chapter...") but you also limit your potential audience - as the number of readers grow, I will guarantee you that the ratio of freeloaders to payers will increase, but the number of payers will still increase. Call it log v.s. linear. You're still making more money...
By the way, I neither read nor purchased his book - I've never found S. King very appealing myself.
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
|
Post #50,849
9/6/02 1:35:17 PM
|
That *is* a loopy requirement
And even if it is the sole reason the experiment failed, success still wouldn't have meant anything to the unknown author. As someone said above, unknown authors would have a hell of a time breaking in to the business. With no name recognition, no one wants to pay for your stuff. If no one pays for your stuff, you can't afford to keep writing. Catch-22.
Except ... One good movie can make a write/director's career. Think Hollywood Shuffle. Self-financed, mostly unpromoted, yet it made the guy's name when it did well at the film festivals. Something like that could get exposure for new authors. But the film festivals are mostly supported by deep pockets, so as someone else said above it would take a well-funded patron to kick the process off. Anyone got a few million they want to use to prove me right?
===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #50,855
9/6/02 2:20:27 PM
|
Yes and no . .
The percentage approach is actually quite logical, because "just enough money and then release" precludes reaping rewards for producing a spectacularly successful product. No matter how well it does, you get no additional income after release.
Yes, this hit may increase income for future products, but probably not much and not for long. Artists are not carpenters or mechanics - their work is uneven, and they depend on an occassional hit that keeps on paying to raise the average.
A better approach is to put out a free first chapter (or first song) teaser, and from there on it's strictly pay-as-you-go for everyone - but that brings us right back to the problem of preventing unauthorized redistribution on the Internet.
The current ethic is, "If you can steal it easilly, then it's not stealing, it's shaing". That leaves the artists and distributors no choice but to make stealing difficult.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #50,864
9/6/02 3:12:20 PM
|
Another way to do it
The percentage approach is actually quite logical, because "just enough money and then release" precludes reaping rewards for producing a spectacularly successful product. No matter how well it does, you get no additional income after release. Make it clear from the outset that each chapter will be released X days/weeks after the threshhold is reached.Then, for spectacularly successful releases, X days/weeks worth of payments represents your profits. If it is only moderately successful, but still reaches the threshhold, it is still released at roughly the same time, as hard-core fans will have all paid within the first week or so (ore pre-ordered) anyway. ===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #51,080
9/9/02 10:10:55 AM
|
Why can't the author say...
"I like what I've done this time around so much, I'll double the price. If you trust me - open your wallet." King is in the position to say it.
Bu' in essence, you are right. There is no way in my schema to stay rich forever off one work. Nor should there be, IMHO. No labor no gain.
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #50,845
9/6/02 1:21:49 PM
|
Rather like shareware, isn't it?
Hi,
It seems to me that you're proposing something very much like shareware in the software world. If you like a developer's product, you pay for it to encourage further development, etc. It's a good system for many, and one that doesn't work for many more.
There are a couple of issues, I think:
1) How does the author get exposure? Good marketing (even if by the web) is difficult and not cheap. The author has to find a way to find buyers.
2) How does the author control unauthorized copies? It's a very difficult problem and one that kills much good shareware.
Self-distribution works in small niches. For mass exposure, there generally has to be some middleman because there's no way of knowing which new author will be successful. Someone has to pay for the marketing, so the cost has to be higher than if things were done by an individual.
An alternative is something like a not-for-profit cooperative or union or something similar. Like-minded authors would join together to fund a marketing system and gain the benefits of the exposure. But setting up something like this, and running it well is difficult.
As always, TANSTAAFL. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #51,078
9/9/02 10:04:17 AM
|
Not at all.
All money up front. After that - no control.
A way to get exposure, I'd guess, is to start publishing something for free. People will learn your name, maybe get addicted to your music, or prose, or something. And then - TANSTAAFL.
I am betting on 2 facts: there are people who would create no matter what (those people are the best creators anyway). And there are peoploe who would pay to get what they want sooner, w/o thinking who else gets the benefit.
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
