Slashdot Mirror

If you want to pay some people money before they make a film, so that it can be released under a creative commons license, then go ahead. Such a project already exists.

About the scenario, these guys should take a look at A Swarm of Angels, which takes a much more open approach at creating a movie. The community can contribute to the two candidate scenarios being written. Then there will be a vote choosing between those two.

Here's an older Slashdot article about this project, "Creative Commons Filmmaking Remixes Modern Cinema", and the Wikipedia link.

And once the producer/impresario/whatever gets the money, he has little incentive to actually make a good one.

Most likely the movies would get made before the advertising blitz. In the long run it wouldn't be possible to keep people's attention consistently if they were asked to fund movies two years ahead of time (except in special cases). Most movies would be produced before-hand, and released right after a short "money-drive" period.

Instead of tying the money to the MOVIE, you're tying the money to the PITCH.

The opinions of trusted reviewers who have actually watched the movie may count for something. Yes, I know reputation systems don't always work. Yes, a reviewer could build up a good reputation on a few movies and then sell-out for big bucks. (Just like today.) So be it. The system would stabilize eventually. If movies were consistently falling below expectation, then people would stop funding them. The studios would still have a strong incentive to produce something that the people are going to like. (Perhaps moreso than today.)

Among the donors, they'd all demand creative control.

You'd think so, but that's apparently not the case. The one project I know following such a model (A Swarm of Angels) has 1000+ of the target 50,000 donors. The project actively solicits the input of the donors. First of all, the producer in question has made it clear that he will exercise creative veto over the donors if necessary. This is clear when donating. Secondly it turns out that the vast majority of people (even among the people who care enough to donate to such a speculative project) don't really want to get into the details. It's only a small number of enthusiasts that end up trying to contribute. If anything, getting people involved is hard.

impossible for anybody to have a single vision for what a film is supposed to be.

Again, I think many movies would be entirely finished before the money-acquisition even begins. So the director would be able to have a specific vision, subject of course to what the investors are willing to invest. (Just like today.)

copyright law (a government-granted monopoly)

That's name calling. Monopolies are tolerable institutions if regulated

It's only name calling if you inherently assume monopolies are always bad (which you claim not to!)... :) Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. I agree that monopolies can sometimes be good, but history also shows that they frequently lead to unintended consolidation of power. We must be watchful of monopolies, and remove them if they do not serve the greater good.

Politics aside, entrenched media cartels have to make money

Most of what you say I do agree with to a large extent... However that statement I do not agree with. Media companies don't have to make money. They may want to make money, and they can do so within the bounds of law, but nothing requires society to erect (or maintain) specific laws to guarantee their continued profitability. If they go out of business, so be it. Many industries have withered as technology changed the landscape. New companies will grow to fill the void. That's life.

Any system that deprives an author of a right to control how a work is copied I would reject out of hand. In the age of the printing press, it's what defines authorship.

Actually copyright prevents copying and does little to define authorship. For instance plagiarism is not prevented by copyright. (You can plagiarize within the bounds of fair use, for example, and it's not illegal.) In any case, attribution can be entirely divorced from copy-protection legally, technically, and socially. So I don't think attribution alone makes a resounding case for keeping copyright around.

Lo

Bingo. You've hit upon exactly the model that I think would work... in fact the only realistic model in a world where copying is effectively free and effortless.

The best part is that in such a model you can still have middlemen. Imagine independent companies get set up to collect these donations. Like you have a "top 20 songs consortium," a "historic drama consortium," a "sci-fi consortium," and so on. So instead of sci-fi fans going to dozens of websites and adding to the tip-jar, they just pay a lump sum to the consortium of their choice, which then distributes the money to worthy sci-fi projects (and takes a cut for themselves, obviously). If consumers find that the consortium is doing a bad job (taking too big a cut, not funding good projects), then consumers will switch to paying directly to the things they care about, or funding a different consortium.

So, basically, you will have the consortiums fighting each other for our cash. This will tend to force them to be good at picking worthy projects to fund. They may even spend money on ads and so forth, convincing us to support them. That's all fine, because unlike the monopolies that exist now, they will actually have to compete with each other (since the flow of money is voluntary... that is, anyone can circumvent the consortiums if they are doing a bad job). Another type of middleman that would develop (or remain, rather), would be producers, who gather investment money for the thing to be made (movie, album, whatever), and of course set the "release price" at a level where the investors gets some return. The free market does its optimization thing, people make money, everyone is happy.

Of course there will be a certain 'free-rider' aspect, because some people will persistently wait for others to pay for content to be released. I say: so be it. We have plenty of free-riders now, and we're surviving. Some people are never going to want to contribute, no matter how hard you try and force them. Others will always be willing to pay for the things they care about... not just so that they have access, but so that everyone does.

I am not an economist, but it seems like it would work. For those of you who don't know, the project "A Swarm of Angels" is trying to do exactly this--they are trying to get 50,000 people to contribute £25 each, so as to produce a big-budget movie that will then be released under a creative commons license. Consider becoming a subscriber! (There are >1000 subscribers so far...)

"There is no money in that."

Look at the business model proposed that you replied to.

The proposal is to make a bit of your name for yourself and then to get paid up front from then on.

"youtube is not a viable option for distribution as they don't allow for uploading long videos"

Perhaps the internet archive then?

These people:

http://www.aswarmofangels.com/

are trying out a twist. We shall see what happens.

all the best,

drew