

Ask HN: How will artists/creators make money in a post-copyright world? - sendos

There has been a lot of discussion lately, spurred mainly by the SOPA/PIPA issue, on whether copyright protection should exist at all.<p>The argument goes like this: due to technology, copying content has zero cost and we are in a post-scarcity society. People used to the old way of making money impose artificial scarcity (via DRM, laws, etc) in order to keep making money, instead of adapting to the times and finding new ways of making money that are more in line with today's reality.<p>My question for HN is: How do you propose artists/creators make money in a post-copyright world?<p>* For musicians, the answer is rather simple: concerts and live performances<p>* For movie makers, the answer may lie in making the theater experience so compelling that people will pay to see it at the theater instead of seeing it at home on their TV/computer. (I think 3D and IMAX screens are an attempt in that direction)<p>* For book authors, I have no idea how they would make money if copying their books was 100% legal. Any ideas?<p>* What about other content creators?
======
cstross
I'm going to focus on fiction writers, because that's what I do ...

One option is to press for alternative compulsory licensing schemes such as
PLR to provide grants for productive writers. Drawback: this lets politicians
cap authors' incomes and erects barriers to entry. Also, the example of the
performing rights societies (like BMI and ASCAP) is a terrible one.

Another is for writers to charge for speaking gigs on the side -- as public
intellectuals. Some already do this. Most can't; writing tends to be the
domain of introverts.

A more promising route is the revival of the serial novel. Back in the late
18th/early 19th century, pirate printers would release their own copies of
popular work as soon as it came out. So the goal of the author was to stay
ahead of the curve. Charles Dickens is the best-known name these days, but was
an exemplar of a publishing model where he shipped a chapter a month to his
own printer, who would print the signatures (bound pages) and distribute them
via itinerant booksellers. (Collectors would collect the signatures and take
them to a book-binder when the serial was complete.) This model can in
principle work today -- you subscribe, and each day/week/whatever a chunk is
delivered to your email account/phone/Kindle/whatever. The books will
eventually leak, but while it's being produced the author has a very short-
term monopoly on the latest instalment. (Also: they can in principle cut off
anyone who they identify as a leaker, by use of fingerprinting (rather than
DRM). Thus giving subscribers a moderate incentive not to leak.)

Also: Kickstarter. Also: Schneier's "street performer protocol" (essentially a
pledge, possibly with funds held in escrow so you pay up-front, the author
writes the book when enough folks have signed up, and you get your copy as
soon as it's released).

------
tluyben2
Book authors: I don't know if this worked for anyone, but Stephen King was,
years ago (I think before it's time which would be _now_ ), requesting money
from his fans for every new chapter he wrote. First pay up enough and when it
reaches a threshold, the new chapter is written. Anyone know who is trying
that now and if it works? It would seem it should work; if I read ch1 and I
like what I see, I would pay... Full refund if the threshold is not reached
obviously. So Kickstarter per chapter.

------
tom_b
I am perfectly happy to pay artists and creators directly for their efforts.

But I am a traditional consumer - I buy music from iTunes happily, watch
movies on-demand even though I hate the cable company, and occasionally buy
art directly from the artist.

------
rdouble
Book authors already make little to no money so what practical difference
would it make?

~~~
cstross
Wrong. Utterly wrong. (I speak as a full-time novelist: hear me roar.)

As with most of the arts, the income distribution is horrendously uneven --
with a Gini coefficient somewhere between 0.6 and 0.75.

The _median_ income of novelists is pathetically low, but a lot of people do
it as essentially a hobby. If you're in the top 20% by earnings, you're in
with a reasonable chance of paying your way. If you're in the top 2%, you need
an accountant to keep your tax bill down. (And if you're in the top 0.2% you
are in the top 1% of the population.)

~~~
rdouble
I'm not sure what part of what you've said negates my point.

~~~
cstross
You said "Book authors already make little to no money".

I am a book author. I haven't made less than £60K (around US $100K) from
writing in each of the past seven financial years. I haven't _ever_ made less
than the national average income (here in the UK) from writing in the twelve
years I've been doing it full time for a living.

Prior to that it was a hobby, and I never made more than £5K a year. That's
part of why the income distribution is so uneven. _Most_ authors are
hobbyists. Those of us who are not, are making a living.

~~~
learc83
In response to the question, "what will artists/creators do for money in a
post-copyright world", the OPs answer that "Book authors already make little
to no money" is mostly valid. Obviously there are authors who make plenty of
money, but for the vast majority of them, in a post-copyright world, they'll
keep doing what they do now (not making money).

The goal of copyright law is to encourage artists to produce art for public
consumption by granting a monopoly. With respect to authors, this doesn't seem
to be necessary as most of them are clearly not primarily motivated by money.

