Street Performer Protocol

maphew writes "Copyright is dead and unenforceable. The Street Performer Protocol is a method (still in the design phase) for getting money to the authors (programs, books, music, whatever) who make their work free. Most Slashdotters will want to skip down to the mechanics section as the first half is rationalization for why something like SPP is necessary, and we all know that already, right? "

Comments

A Mall in Every Song

[Anonymous Coward]

Holding future works ransom to induce payment might work for some, but not many. Advertising is the way to go, just like radio and TV. Imagine if recording artists could embed a watermark identifier into their recordings that then instructed WinAMP or Sonique (for example) to render an advertisement/ sponsorship within the player. I bet Coca-Cola would pay a bundle for that right.

Problems

[Gleef]

I'm curious to see this system in action. I see many problems with the system, but none of them are fatal flaws. The biggest for me is that the SPP avoids the whole issue of licensing by saying that the programmer is producing for the Public Domain. I'm not sure I'm all that interested in writing anything major for the public domain, since the GPL allows just as much use of the software, but also encourages other people to produce Free software. Of course, if enough developers like the PD idea, than the system could start to work.

Secondly, how would quality assurance be handled? The author implies that issues like that would be worked out by market pressures, but I think it's too grey an area to affect the market drastically. If you have one programmer (let's call him "Steve") who makes high quality work, but is slow to produce it and asks for a lot of money; and another programmer (let's call him "Bill") who makes very poor quality programs, but makes them quickly and doesn't ask much for them (but he's more prolific, so he gets a little bit much more often), the system is likely to encourage Bill more than Steve, while I'd prefer a system which works the other way around. Again, a concern, not a fatal flaw.

My third concern is that the SPP all but demands a Cathedral development style. The project is kept under wraps, worked on by an individual or small team, unless and until the donations reach their critical mass. While many good projects have used a Cathedral style, there is a lot to be said for the Bazaar style, and most of the SPP's likely developers seem to prefer Bazaar projects.

Another object, I'll use an example project for this one. Let's say someone offered to write a speech recognition library by December 31, 2001 if $100,000 in donations are gathered. Let's say everyone acts in good faith. The first scenario, the author estimates that the actual work will take 18 months, but at June 30, 2000 only $40,000 has been collected, how can the developer figure out whether it's worthwhile to start the project, maybe enough will be collected, maybe not.

The second scenario, everyone acts in good faith, lots of donations are collected, the devloper is a busy beaver; but something unexpected happens and the schedule slips by a month. According to the proposal, when the deadline is reached with no product, the "Publisher" refunds everyone's money. However, the programmer has just spent two years of his life expecting the big payoff to make it worthwhile, and is looking at a mostly finished project, a pile of bills and no cash. The donors have don't have the project they wanted, the Publisher not only loses his cut, but has to spend time and money refunding the donors. Everyone acted in good faith, and for want of a single month, nobody's happy.

A third scenario, still with the Speech Recognition project. It gets off to a good start, lots of donations come in quickly, the developer starts work. Three months later, IBM GPL's Via Voice. The developer is suddenly forced into choosing between going through the cost of bowing down from the project and refunding everyone, or doing a cleanroom version, and reinvent the wheel rather than going to the Wheel-O-Rama and playing with (and improving on) the great wheels they offer there. Again, everyone acted in good faith, but nobody's happy.

It's a start...

[Bruce Perens]

It's not taking into account the incremental nature of software development. Think continuing funding rather than paying for a fait accompli.

I'm more sanguine about the future of copyright, so why not apply a scheme like this to GPL software rather than public domain?

It needs a 501(c)3 non-profit operating it to be tax-effective.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Defense of the Protocol

[Bruce Perens]

First, it's important to realize that the Protocol depends on the assumption that copyright law is already broken, and only becomes valid when that point is reaced.

What if the world doesn't cooperate? And even if it does, then I guess this scheme would then be vulnerable to copyright barbarians at the gates.

I think you're making a mistake by requiring a significant change in the way people do business as a prerequisite. As a consequence, fine, but not as a prerequisite.

There's lots of good stuff in your thesis that doesn't depend on copyright breaking so badly. Don't get hung up on that.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Problem # n+1

[Bruce Perens]

Most people work for a steady wage and are more or less happy that way. Most would exchange a gamble for security. The ones who take risks are in the minority.

Bruce

Cox and Wall

[Bruce Perens]

Wall's main contribution to his employer has been a copyrighted work - the Perl manual. Cox's contribution to Red Hat is less direct, but still it's working software that they sell. In contrast, the Medicis used patronage as a P.R. tool - those nice artworks and talented people hanging around the office helped them lead by impressing the little folks.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Problem # n+1

[Bruce Perens]

The world is full of starving artists, yes. The point I was trying to make was that given the chance lots of people would work for a steady wage. In other words, you would not have any trouble finding people who would be willing to create even if there is a cap on their potential earnings, as long as they get a reasonable steady wage.

Thanks

Bruce

Interesting idea, but...

[trims]

..there are alot of problems. Here are some that I can think of:

• How do I know what to ask for? Currently, the price of an item is primarily determined by demand and production, typical capitalistic methods. The marketplace does an exceedingly good job of maximizing the gain for everyone (granted, software costs are NOT one of these situations). How am I, as an individual, supposed to figure out what a reasonable cost is? If I guess too low, I miss out on (possibly) large sums that I should have made (unfair to me), and if I guess too high, people will not get to see my work (unfair to them) since I won't publish. Price setting is extremely difficult, and perhaps the biggest flaw in the system.
• What happens to the money that people contribute if the "goal" isn't made? I assume that it's refunded; however, think of the logistics and costs associated with this. Think of all the problems that happen every time some group cancels a concert. Multiply this thousandfold. Remember, the "Publisher" entrusted with the finished work is also probably the collector of the money. The "Publisher" will almost certainly pass the cost of insurance against such a cancellation to the author, so you might end up cutting out small authors, since the cost of the "Publisher" may be a large chunk of the possible revenue.
• How is the product evaluated? Does the Publisher vouch for the safe operation/quality of the product? Demoware? Reviews?
• What about support? OK, for books and music, this might be a lesser issue, but what about software? Is it just like GNU stuff nowdays? Or is there some arrangement? And what about liability? Who is responsible if it doesn't work as advertized?

Perhaps the biggest flaw I can see (particularly in the author/music industry) is that no one has any idea of what something is worth. Also, the protocol heavily discriminates against first-time authors, since it depends on reputation as a methods for setting expectations of return. What if I don't want to write 6 books, but have 1 awesome novel?

Overall, it's an interesting idea, but one that has far too many practical flaws for us to ever see it in reality.

-Erik

expect large companies to try and screw this...

[semis]

I would expect some pretty heavy competition against such a scheme by the likes of Sony, MS, etc.. Expect lots of FUD to get thrown around if this method becomes popular.

This proposal is a really neat idea though. The PEOPLE need to hear about this kinda stuff - tell your friends, family etc...!

my 2c.

With regard to software

[DonkPunch]

I can understand how this applies to works like books and music. Some writers and musicians have styles which can't be imitated convincingly. I would pay for Album 1 from my favorite musician, knowing that I'm helping fund Album 2 from them.

I have reservations about using this model with software, though. Suppose a developer releases Version 1 and says, "I will release Version 1.1 as soon as I receive $xx.xx".

Assume that Version 1.1 will have features that I really need now.

If the source code is available, why couldn't I just add the features I want? If it's Free Software, I could release my own 1.1 for less than the original developer wants. If my Version 1.1 provides the features people need now, why would they wait for the original developer's 1.1?

Alternative -- Suppose the developer releases 1.0 in binary-only form. The software is free to copy and use, but you don't get the source. Now, it's harder for anyone else to do Version 1.1 first. The developer reasons that he/she is improving their chances of getting money before releasing Version 1.1.

This is NOT a point against Free Software. My concern is that a scheme such as SPP could lead to more zero-cost software, but might actually discourage real Free Software.

Defense of the Protocol

[_Quinn]

I'll respond to some of the concerns raised here in order, after a set of general comments.

First, it's important to realize that the Protocol depends on the assumption that copyright law is already broken, and only becomes valid when that point is reaced. Furthermore, it depends on the notion that the current scarcity model for content can no longer be applied. Some of the comments address this contention ("nobody wants to read novels online"), missing the assumption that we've effectively divorced content from its container.

For example, this is already 90% true in music. After a relatively small initial investment, anyone with a decent computer and a decent netlink can burn their own audio CD's at something like $4 a pop. It becomes increasingly apparent that 'piracy' of musical content is astoundlingly widespread and equally impossible to stop. Music distribution is digital until the point it gets on the wires to your speakers, so it's the perfect example. The cost incurred by the end-user (burning the CD) is a concession to the lack of universal networking, not any particular inability to enjoy the music in another form (i.e. your HD, a flashcard, etc). Similarly, the major obstacle to purely digital distribution of novels and texts is two-fold: first, a universal (de-facto) standard (or a pair, like mp3 and CDA) for distribution of content (ASCII text simply doesn't cut it for a serious work), and a cheap home system for manufacturing the container -- nobody's produced a system for manufacturing paperback novels from a home computer systems. (AFAIK.)

So the Protocol depends on the assumption that we've not only developed a low- or no- cost system for distribution of content (the internet) but also a low- or no- cost system for creation of containers. Otherwise, the whole model breaks because people will be willing to pay for copies of the content -- which, in turn, allows copyright law to be enforced, because there's some central point manufacturing those containers. With those points in mind, let's look at the issues raised.

This is ridiculous.

[colmore]

This is as silly as "eCash" and "Micropayments" it will simply never succeed. If this generates any money at all I will forever hold my peice and amke no more web predictions. That is of course a lie.

Why this thing can't work:
1) "Serialization" do we want everything to be serialized like that dumb Stephen King (get well soon!) marketing ploy to sell the green mile? Seeing the X-Files come in segments is one thing. Waiting for months as an album or novel is delivered peacemeal is quite different.

2) Artist Frustration. What If the work doesn't generate any "Street Money?" and the Artists work never shows up. In the very simplistic views of the goals of the different participants a key goal of the artist was left out: expression. Sure the artist has to eat, but if that fails at least he or she can make a statement and have work published. Under this doomed system the artist that wasn't able to get people to pay for the promise of more work has a large body of unpublished work that they cannot release by contract. If we add a provision that says that if after some time the work isn't published then the artist regains rights to publish then the public won't pay, they'll just wait a little while longer (and with the pace of the internet being what it is, that wouldn't be too fast)

3) Who's going to pay? They tried to sell content once. Only porn sells directly. If people wouldn't pay for content that ALLREADY existed then why would anyone pay for essentially vaporware. And if the publisher is having trouble generating money then they could easily reach the financial position of being unable to pay angry "customers" back. Even on a guarauteed site, I don't like giving out my credit card number too often. And paying for vaporware isn't something i'd take any risk on.

4) Servers are getting better and cheaper. The promise of internet content is to REMOVE the middleman from publishing. Any artist able to make money by this obsurd system could surely afford a $20 to $30 per month account at dreamhost or somewhere. As servers and bandwidth get better the expense of streaming content and large file storage and big transfer rates will plummit. Artists won't need a Publisher. All they'd need is a friend or hired highschooler to write some HTML.

5) Online novels, maybe the only thing that could succeed on this payment plan, won't happen. Reading large amounts of text on the screen is painful even for bloodshot veterans and truely great books (I reccomend Catch-22 and Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man :^]) are available at you LIBRARY for free. And reading is more fun when you can curl up with some hot chocolate under a quilt and feel the pages in your hands.


What we need, and I forsee coming within the next 5-10 years, is a very secure system of one click payment on the internet (well one click and a password... sure) this way artist sites could have a simple "donate" button where with two typed fields and a button you could give him or her a buck or two. This would be psychologically easier than pulling out the old card and filling in your name rank and number again and again. With a simple way to give small amounts of money people would be more inclined to acts of small charity. However browsers would have to be guaraunteed to allways alert you to a transaction and allways tell the true amount being sent. Maybe even have a sending delay so you could cancel within 48 hours or so.

Well slashdotters what do you think?

Re:This is ridiculous.

[Dwindlehop]

I don't think this is ridiculous. I do think you have pointed out the flaws in the SPP. Obviously something must be done about the current state of copyright law in the near future. I think the SPP, being a work in progress, can be modified to fix the holes in it that you pointed out.

1) Serialization. You're right. I agree that there's not enough demand for serialized works to move entire markets to that model. The burden of trust needs to be moved back to the consumers, not the suppliers, as other slashdotters have mentioned. Consumers should be sending money to suppliers for content they've already created--like the market works currently. But the mechanism for doing so would be a quick and easy, privacy-assured electronic system for payment such as the authors of SPP described. Analogous systems exist today in the service industry: whenever I tip a waitress, we are having the exact same sort of transaction that I described above, only on more mundane terms. Think about it.

2) Artist Frustration. I don't think the artist is forced to use the SPP. SPP, and the variations we discuss here, are just ways of exchanging content without the protection of existing copyright law. Artists will be free to release and distribute their content however they wish, including circumventing any SPP or similar system.

3) Who's going to pay? I think the majority of consumers are willing to pay for what they perceive to be worthy content. The trick is getting the mass market to accept these rules of commerce as thoroughly as they do the ones of our current cash system--not impossible, but certainly something that needs to be looked after. The other trick is having a electronic standard as good as cash for making payments. I agree with you about the credit cards--they are not an truly acceptable method of conducting business electronically. I believe a government-backed standard is in order, much the same as cash is today. The more ecommerce is like plunking down your twenties at the Wal-Mart (or Lord & Taylor), the better.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say they tried to sell content once and failed. Are you talking about efforts to charge subscription rates on websites? Or perhaps you are taking the view that the history of information and art cash-exchanges is really about material, distribution, and storage costs? I can't tell.

4) Servers are getting better and cheaper. I agree with you here, and honestly do not see this as a problem. Kudos to the start-up artists that operate their own servers, or the big-name author who bypass the publishing middlemen by making his own site. But, for many of the rest, having a publisher or some other promoter will be essential. Every author needs an editor, every musician needs an engineer. The middlemen will continue to serve these roles, as well as distribution, most likely. It has been and will always be true that division of labor leads to more efficiency and greater production. Would you rather have your favorite musician worrying about their next album or the scalability of their server?

5) Online novels, maybe the only thing that could succeed on this payment plan, won't happen. Not on a CRT monitor, they won't. Displays will be developed that feature the portability and legibility of books, but in electronic format. That is crucial to the sale of electronic books; without the invention of something comparable to electronic printing press, you are quite right: online novels will not happen.