People certainly get attached to their historical revenues, but let's not forget that businesses like books, movies, and music all have hit-dominated economics

People certainly get attached to their historical revenues, but let's not forget that businesses like books, movies, and music all have hit-dominated economics under the current model and that this has co-evolved with the kinds of products that are available. Cutting the potential upside of the big hits does disproportionate damage to the overall industry's expected returns. I know you were specifically discussing books where initial production costs are low (in comparison to marketing), but consider what happens to film and television. As you say, under a new regime without copyright as-is, new people may come in to fill the void. However, they may not be real replacements for the old-media dinosaurs. If it becomes impossible to try to make something like "Lost" with any reasonable expectation of a return, then products as complex and expensive as "Lost" simply won't get made. We should be cognizant of this kind of tradeoff as policy evolves. I think the recent story about Louis C.K. points out one possible angle of filling the void; it's comparatively cheap for him to try a stunt like that. Generally, things produced by individuals with relatively little "refinement" (sound, graphics, costumes, marketing, etc.) seem like good candidates for business model innovation. On the other hand, the pilot episode of "Lost" cost millions of dollars just in production (i.e. before they even had any idea if it would be popular and got a marketing budget). If we want a new regime that still allows such projects to be undertaken, Kickstarter-like services and "Please just pay me $5" probably aren't going to cut it (no disrespect to Kickstarter or Louis). I don't know if, in the context of big budget projects, they even represent a meaningful step toward a solution.