Here's an idea for how to change the means of distribution so that artists and consumers get the best deal:
Release artworks under a GPL. Explicitly allow copying for anyone else, for free or for a fee. Then anyone can set up their own trading post website where other people can buy (or get for free) anything the site maintainer is willing to distribute.
How can any artist make money in this situation? How can any music fan find anything they like?
The artist can make money by auctioning off the initial copies of their work on a well-known website (say . . . a record company site) which performs the service of building hype for the artist. As copies flood the marketplace, reselling and free redistribution will bring the market price for a work down over time until at some point, anyone can get a copy of anything for free or nearly free if they're willing to wait long enough. Those who want to make money off of reselling, or who are rich enough and want first crack at a new artwork, will collect enough capital to bid on an early release of the work.
It's the initial sale that would make the artist (and the hype-building company -- which is a primary function of record companies today) the bulk of their money, but their music would filter out faster, consumers would have more choices, and instead of a few huge companies being the filters of wheat from the chaff, now everyone who wants to set up a website can become a specialized filter for different tastes. And eventually, all art would be available for nearly free, and probably nothing would ever go out of print.
Also, if the original sale points of artwork provide enough additional services to bring customers back, even though they could find cheaper copies of a work elsewhere, the creator of that work can still get some royalties long after the work is released.
Just an idea. I've written up a long-ass version of these ideas, and will happily email you a copy.
As a musician and a writer I believe very strongly in the Copyright system. All of my work is Copyrighted. On the other hand, I have been unable to get my music published, and very little of my writing has been published. I like to think that it's because I'm a talentless hack, but who knows.
I take any opportunity to ask artists: what would you think about releasing your works in a way that allowed copying, if there was a chance that that would get you more exposure? Maybe you're not a talentless hack -- maybe your work just hasn't filtered down to the right audience.
Here's an idea for how to change the means of distribution so that artists and consumers get the best deal:
Release artworks under a GPL. Explicitly allow copying for anyone else, for free or for a fee. Then anyone can set up their own trading post website where other people can buy (or get for free) anything the site maintainer is willing to distribute.
How can any artist make money in this situation? How can any music fan find anything they like?
The artist can make money by auctioning off the initial copies of their work on a well-known website (say . . . a record company site) which performs the service of building hype for the artist. As copies flood the marketplace, reselling and free redistribution will bring the market price for a work down over time until at some point, anyone can get a copy of anything for free or nearly free if they're willing to wait long enough. Those who want to make money off of reselling, or who are rich enough and want first crack at a new artwork, will collect enough capital to bid on an early release of the work.
It's the initial sale that would make the artist (and the hype-building company -- which is a primary function of record companies today) the bulk of their money, but their music would filter out faster, consumers would have more choices, and instead of a few huge companies being the filters of wheat from the chaff, now everyone who wants to set up a website can become a specialized filter for different tastes. And eventually, all art would be available for nearly free, and probably nothing would ever go out of print.
Also, if the original sale points of artwork provide enough additional services to bring customers back, even though they could find cheaper copies of a work elsewhere, the creator of that work can still get some royalties long after the work is released.
Just an idea. I've written up a long-ass version of these ideas, and will happily email you a copy.
Slashdot Mirror
Release artworks under a GPL. Explicitly allow copying for anyone else, for free or for a fee. Then anyone can set up their own trading post website where other people can buy (or get for free) anything the site maintainer is willing to distribute.
How can any artist make money in this situation? How can any music fan find anything they like?
The artist can make money by auctioning off the initial copies of their work on a well-known website (say . . . a record company site) which performs the service of building hype for the artist. As copies flood the marketplace, reselling and free redistribution will bring the market price for a work down over time until at some point, anyone can get a copy of anything for free or nearly free if they're willing to wait long enough. Those who want to make money off of reselling, or who are rich enough and want first crack at a new artwork, will collect enough capital to bid on an early release of the work.
It's the initial sale that would make the artist (and the hype-building company -- which is a primary function of record companies today) the bulk of their money, but their music would filter out faster, consumers would have more choices, and instead of a few huge companies being the filters of wheat from the chaff, now everyone who wants to set up a website can become a specialized filter for different tastes. And eventually, all art would be available for nearly free, and probably nothing would ever go out of print.
Also, if the original sale points of artwork provide enough additional services to bring customers back, even though they could find cheaper copies of a work elsewhere, the creator of that work can still get some royalties long after the work is released.
Just an idea. I've written up a long-ass version of these ideas, and will happily email you a copy.
I take any opportunity to ask artists: what would you think about releasing your works in a way that allowed copying, if there was a chance that that would get you more exposure? Maybe you're not a talentless hack -- maybe your work just hasn't filtered down to the right audience.
Release artworks under a GPL. Explicitly allow copying for anyone else, for free or for a fee. Then anyone can set up their own trading post website where other people can buy (or get for free) anything the site maintainer is willing to distribute.
How can any artist make money in this situation? How can any music fan find anything they like?
The artist can make money by auctioning off the initial copies of their work on a well-known website (say . . . a record company site) which performs the service of building hype for the artist. As copies flood the marketplace, reselling and free redistribution will bring the market price for a work down over time until at some point, anyone can get a copy of anything for free or nearly free if they're willing to wait long enough. Those who want to make money off of reselling, or who are rich enough and want first crack at a new artwork, will collect enough capital to bid on an early release of the work.
It's the initial sale that would make the artist (and the hype-building company -- which is a primary function of record companies today) the bulk of their money, but their music would filter out faster, consumers would have more choices, and instead of a few huge companies being the filters of wheat from the chaff, now everyone who wants to set up a website can become a specialized filter for different tastes. And eventually, all art would be available for nearly free, and probably nothing would ever go out of print.
Also, if the original sale points of artwork provide enough additional services to bring customers back, even though they could find cheaper copies of a work elsewhere, the creator of that work can still get some royalties long after the work is released.
Just an idea. I've written up a long-ass version of these ideas, and will happily email you a copy.