I don't agree with your first problem. My 'pay-up-front-model' doesn't remove the profit motive for those who want to make a profit. There a billions of people who are willing to spend to lots of money for new 'content'. If you want to be rich, you'll have to play the game in such a way that the donations cover more than the mere costs of making your product. Or even better, go for break-even and earn your big house and five cars with sideprojects like merchandise or whatever.
More importantly (and perhaps this is something we disagree on), I think that art in its basic form should be 'altruistic not-for-profit' as you call Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind artists making a living from their talents, or even if some get very rich. But an artist should not start out for a profit. A young film maker should want to make movies because... he wants to make movies! Not because he wants to be rich or famous. If he's good enough, he'll find ways to get himself bigger budgets.
Your second problem is a good point. My only riposte is that the current model isn't doing too good in this department as well. I have seen a lot of good movies with budgets of less than a million and I have seen a lot of very expensive special effects in movies that were absolutely worthless. The decision over what movie is going to get money is not made by us movie-goers, but anonymous suits who think they know what we want. And they get it wrong a lot of times. Still, Spore would have a harder time, yes. On the other hand, think what a project like Ubuntu would cost if it was done by a purely commercial organisation. And yet, it exists, it's free and yet Mark Shuttleworth thinks he will make some money out of it.
Your final problem, for me, is the same as the first. New entrants in the market shouldn't be there to make a profit.
My 'pay-up-front-model' is something that I think could work, but it is only one example of ways to get projects funded and to make money on art without DRM. I'm sure that there are many more ways the creative industry would come up with. And don't forget, the current models of releasing movies, games, music etc. won't die. Release games and charge money for each DVD. I don't care. I'll even buy some, except the ones that are DRM'd.
When somebody can give me a sound, scalable, generic and implementable economic design for goods that cost money to build the first time but are free to copy from then on, I might start to protest against DRM, because I'd actually have an answer to the question of "If not DRM then what?".
No design needed. Economics in itself will take care of this. There is a HUGE demand for new music. If there are musicians who feel they need to be financially compensated, they will come up with a way to earn money, even without the 'possibilities' of DRM. If, for example, Clutch wanted to produce a new album but they don't have the money for it, I'd be more than willing to donate. They'd just have to put a Wikipedia-style donation link on their website saying: "We'll record our next album if we raise $50.000". If the amount is anywhere near reasonable it should work. In fact, some bands are already doing this.
The same model could be applied to books, movies, paintings etc. If you're a brilliant filmmaker, you should be able to find people who are willing to pay money for you to be able to make your next movie. The amount depends on your credibility, your talent and the number of people. If you fail to collect 200 million dollars for your second project, maybe you should come up with a less ambitious script.
And, if you're any good, there's a lot of money to be made from concerts, merchandise, airplay, commercials etc.
Plain economics, but it's demand-centered. DRM is supply-centered. I don't understand how people can think that artistic creativity would die without DRM. I think there would be much more music, books and movies if we cleaned the 'market' of the outdated notion that an artist (or, most of the time, some big company) should get a fixed amount per played song or read page.
... controlling the whole chain from musician to consumer? Great! That's what the big recordcompanies always wanted, but couldn't get working. DRM heaven!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't agree with your first problem. My 'pay-up-front-model' doesn't remove the profit motive for those who want to make a profit. There a billions of people who are willing to spend to lots of money for new 'content'. If you want to be rich, you'll have to play the game in such a way that the donations cover more than the mere costs of making your product. Or even better, go for break-even and earn your big house and five cars with sideprojects like merchandise or whatever.
More importantly (and perhaps this is something we disagree on), I think that art in its basic form should be 'altruistic not-for-profit' as you call Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind artists making a living from their talents, or even if some get very rich. But an artist should not start out for a profit. A young film maker should want to make movies because... he wants to make movies! Not because he wants to be rich or famous. If he's good enough, he'll find ways to get himself bigger budgets.
Your second problem is a good point. My only riposte is that the current model isn't doing too good in this department as well. I have seen a lot of good movies with budgets of less than a million and I have seen a lot of very expensive special effects in movies that were absolutely worthless. The decision over what movie is going to get money is not made by us movie-goers, but anonymous suits who think they know what we want. And they get it wrong a lot of times. Still, Spore would have a harder time, yes. On the other hand, think what a project like Ubuntu would cost if it was done by a purely commercial organisation. And yet, it exists, it's free and yet Mark Shuttleworth thinks he will make some money out of it.
Your final problem, for me, is the same as the first. New entrants in the market shouldn't be there to make a profit.
My 'pay-up-front-model' is something that I think could work, but it is only one example of ways to get projects funded and to make money on art without DRM. I'm sure that there are many more ways the creative industry would come up with. And don't forget, the current models of releasing movies, games, music etc. won't die. Release games and charge money for each DVD. I don't care. I'll even buy some, except the ones that are DRM'd.
Unfortunately counting is difficult for some people.
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article.ns?id=dn10 233
... controlling the whole chain from musician to consumer? Great! That's what the big recordcompanies always wanted, but couldn't get working. DRM heaven!