Dirtside's Journal: A model for content distribution

In my opinion, the ideal model for the distribution of creative content is this: A creator creates the content (a writer writes a book, filmmakers make a movie, a musician records a song), then releases the content for free.

The public knows that creators have to eat, and so they know that if they like the work that a particular creator puts out, they should donate to that creator in order to encourage him, her, or them to continue producing things they like. If the creator doesn't receive enough donations due to his work, he may choose not to continue doing it (in favor of "regular" jobs). So it's in each reader/viewer/listener's interest to donate to the creators they like, since if they don't, there's a chance that those creators will decide it's not feasible to continue creating, and will stop, thus depriving the audience of further good artistic creations.

Karmically, you'd donate after experiencing a work, for as much as you think the work was worth to you. If you read Doctorow's new book and hated it, you'd probably donate nothing, and never again read one of his books. If you thought he had potential but didn't like this particular book, or simply wanted to reward him for his effort, you might donate a buck or two. Like the book reasonably well? Maybe five bucks. Think it's the greatest thing ever? The sky's the limit.

That's fundamentally it. The core idea is that since publically-disseminated information (like books, songs, and movies) cannot be controlled once published, fighting against it is wasteful and pointless. This isn't a new idea, nor is it originally my idea (I'm not positive but it's essentially a form of busking). Copyright was a nifty idea back when it was relatively difficult to copy large quantities of information like a book, movie, or song, but technology has changed and controlling it the way we do is no longer feasible.

There are practical issues, like the fact that some percentage of people will take in all the content they can without ever compensating the creators. But even they will eventually come to understand that if they don't contribute, and if enough people are like them, the creators will stop making their content. But we don't need laws to enforce this: it'll happen on its own. (And of course, creators could choose to sell copies of their works, if they wanted, in convenient formats; and I'm willing to bet that most people would still prefer to go to a store and buy a convenient copy of a movie or book or album, rather than dealing with getting a digital copy for free.)

The free-rider problem

[Ironica]

The catch is, *yes* some people will simply use the content and not pay. This is an ongoing problem with public goods, such as parks, transportation, and so on. One reason we provide these things from tax dollars is because if we ask people to pay as much as they think it's worth to them, they will tend to understate the value of the good to them, so as to pay less. By taxing everyone (more or less) equally for it, we ensure it gets paid for and provided.

When we let the "market" sort out stuff like this

Re:The no-really-I-wrote-it problem

[bdktty]

How do you deal with people that claim ownership of works they did not produce?

It seems like artists would need to hire someone to manage all those issues, and to help market their works, because no one wants to die alone and one-eared like picasso. This person who helped artists by taking care of all these things that artists don't like doing would probally have multiple clients, and then employees, and then standardised contracts and . . .

I love the idea of free creation, I really do, I just don't see