Now that content is a pure public good, there are only a few options to support its creation.
1. Draconian legislative enforcement.
2. Public funding
3. Charitable fundraising (100k true fans model)
4. Production by hobbyists
5. Charging for extreme convenience (this makes DRM seem pretty dumb.)
6. Giving it away and making it back in ancillary ways (i.e. endorsements, paid speaking engagements, live shows etc)
Make no mistake, the Amanda Palmer model is workable only for those who are great at charitable fundraising. Because that's what she's doing. I'm glad it works for her, but most artists aren't brilliant marketers.
Frankly, none of the available options look all that great. Hopefully an "all of the above" cocktail will work out okay in the near term.
A friend of mine named Robert Hettinga has long championed the concept of "recursive auctions." The first copy of a piece of information is the most valuable. Subsequent copies are less valuable. Eventually the copies lose all novelty and reach a value of zero, or even a negative value because they occupy space which could otherwise store more valuable information.
The original producer of information auctions the first copy to the highest bidder. Anyone who buys a copy owns that copy, and I mean ownership in the strong sense of having an exclusive right of use or disposal. In particular, the owner has the right to sell a copy of his property to other bidders. The price of subsequent copies will tend to decline, though not always.
Owners of information may thus recoup or exceed their original cost basis by selling copies of their property.
Note well that when I say you own a copy of some information, I mean precisely a physical copy -- a specific pattern of subatomic particles in your physical possession. I am not talking about ownership of "abstract information" or "ideas." I am talking pure physics here.
Some producers of information will choose not to sell it, but will instead profit from it in other ways. This is called a "trade secret." (Examples: the formulas for Coca Cola and KFC.)
I oppose "public funding" because it means putting people in prison for not paying. This is lazy and unimaginative. I recommend that you account for free riders as a cost of doing business. If you can't find a way to reduce or overcome that cost, do something else.
I'm rather fond of closed systems, invitation-only, where even basic usage is not free (example https://loom.cc). These are private goods, quietly laboring in happy obscurity.
I've not read this yet, but I searched for the word "software" and didn't find it so I'll point out that Free and Open Source Software is also a "Public Good" in economics terms. Any piratable software probably counts too for the same reasons outlined for content.
1. Draconian legislative enforcement.
2. Public funding
3. Charitable fundraising (100k true fans model)
4. Production by hobbyists
5. Charging for extreme convenience (this makes DRM seem pretty dumb.)
6. Giving it away and making it back in ancillary ways (i.e. endorsements, paid speaking engagements, live shows etc)
Make no mistake, the Amanda Palmer model is workable only for those who are great at charitable fundraising. Because that's what she's doing. I'm glad it works for her, but most artists aren't brilliant marketers.
Frankly, none of the available options look all that great. Hopefully an "all of the above" cocktail will work out okay in the near term.