4 ms·

While I realize that it can't happen any time soon due to the current businesses that rely on copyright protection, there have been alternatives proposed that w

by Spoom 15y ago

While I realize that it can't happen any time soon due to the current businesses that rely on copyright protection, there have been alternatives proposed that work without it, like The Digital Art Auction ( http://tdaa.digitalproductions.co.uk/history/essay.htm http://tdaa.digitalproductions.co.uk/history/essay.htm ) and Street Performer Protocol ( http://www.schneier.com/paper-street-performer.html http://www.schneier.com/paper-street-performer.html , blacked out due to SOPA as of writing). Vastly simplified, they describe a system in which an artist describes a work they would create, and the money they would like to raise to release such a work. People bid on how much they would pay to see the work released. This bid is either collected into an escrow account up front or otherwise "pledged" in some binding way (perhaps a credit card auth). Once the threshold of pledges is reached, the money is released to the artist and the art is released to the public. These threshold pledge systems all have the weakness that the work must be paid for up front, after which (since one assumes a lack of copyright) the work is public domain. In some ways this may not actually be a weakness, though; it transforms users into investors, making them say, "I would like something that does / has X and Y, and I would be willing to pay $Z to get it." Of course, this system does not entail any per-copy price... however, nowadays the cost to create a copy of something is approaching zero anyway. Does it really make sense to continue to charge a per-copy fee? Charging a subscription fee, however, would still be possible in many circumstances, if a service was actually being offered. What are your thoughts on such systems?

eropple 15y ago
I've read both of the links you provide at various times, and I remain skeptical. It seems like an awesome way to put a hard ceiling on what creative works actually get made, because the likelihood of anyone actually funding a project of magnitude is extremely small. I look at it from a game development point of view, and I have to ask--who's going to pony up the cash for the next Half-Life (not the next Valve game, but the next product on that level) up-front when dealing with nobodies? And there's no reason for somebody to sink their own money into such a project because of the lack of payoff. Today, I can self-bootstrap by making smaller games and building up cash reserves, if I want. Or I can put away some money in my day job, like I am now, to actually build what I want to build and what I think will be well-received and make more value back for me than the money and time I'll need to sink into it to create it. Why would I risk my own money, and that much time, in a system where I'll get nothing back for it? (Subscription services are not a solution; not every game is World of Warcraft, and I'd argue that none should be.) "I'm going to need $100,000 (or, for something where you'd actually have to hire multiple people, $X,000,000) to make a video game." "Yeah, right. Don't let the door hit you on the way out." While I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, every rebuttal to this I've ever seen requires a lot of handwaving and an assumption of active and knowledgeable participation on the part of end consumers. To be honest, I don't expect investor-level behavior out of consumers; I expect a lot of yelling about how something is X when they "already paid for" something very slightly but to them critically different than X, but not much in the way of useful, constructive development-centric criticism. It's not their bag.
- Dove 15y ago
  who's going to pony up the cash for the next Half-Life (not the next Valve game, but the next product on that level) up-front when dealing with nobodies? While I acknowledge that it doesn't seem to make economic sense, I have a great deal of respect for how people seem to be actually behaving. True nobodies can raise six figures on Kickstarter right now. I can only imagine what would happen if a somebody tried. If Valve put HL3 on Kickstarter, might they raise the necessary funds? I kinda think they might.
  - eropple 15y ago
    And how do you create that "somebody" in a world hostile to self-bootstrapping? The only option I see is to spend a significant (and economically fairly stupid because of the opportunity costs you give up in doing so) amount of time incrementally building larger and larger projects, hoping that you're still enough of the flavor-of-the-month that people will continue to fund you. (For an example of why I'm skeptical of this sort of things, I'd suggest watching Mojang's Scrolls title upon release. Edstradamus predicts notable failure.) Valve, with the original Half-Life didn't come completely out of nowhere, but it was pretty close. I am confident enough to say that it wouldn't have happened if they had to use a Kickstarter clone. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I can't think of a case where a creative work running, say, $5,000,000 (which is a moderate movie budget, if you have examples from that medium) was pre-funded by a crowd of consumers (i.e., excluding patronage, which I think most would agree is not a desirable model to return to) as opposed to profit-seeking investors.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      iD Software bootstrapped themselves with a low budget, shareware, no effective DRM, and an audience that largely wasn't big on buying things (teenage boys, as far as I can tell). The recent success of numerous "indy" games, smartphone app games, and in particular Zynga indicate to me that success in the market with a low budget (read: not making 'AAA games') is still not only feasible, but common.
      - 15y ago
wwwtyro 15y ago
I strongly approve, and I think they are probably part of the way things will be done in the future. Kickstarter is already making great forays into this field. It's serendipitous that you bring this up, as I am currently working on a startup that uses this very method!
- Spoom 15y ago
  Interesting. Something I've considered doing, though I'd first look at how to avoid the problems with these systems that the sibling post mentioned (how to get the initial investment, how to enable artists without a reputation to earn pledges, how to guarantee output once the threshold is reached, how to pledge in a binding but revokeable way, etc.) How are you working around these issues?
- angersock 15y ago
  Doing something similar. Hit me back at the address in my profile, if you would.
  - Spoom 15y ago
    I'd also like to hear about this; just updated my profile with my email. Thanks!
cschwarm 15y ago
Although I'm not the OP, let me comment on these auction models: From an economic point of view, they suffer under high transaction costs. Transaction costs include legal stuff, distribution, and advertising. The later is probably the largest block. There's only a very small minority who likes to engage in the creation of works. The majority just wants to be entertained. For this, they need signals of quality, and the perceivable amount of advertising is such a signal.

by Spoom 15y ago

eropple 15y ago

I've read both of the links you provide at various times, and I remain skeptical. It seems like an awesome way to put a hard ceiling on what creative works actually get made, because the likelihood of anyone actually funding a project of magnitude is extremely small. I look at it from a game development point of view, and I have to ask--who's going to pony up the cash for the next Half-Life (not the next Valve game, but the next product on that level) up-front when dealing with nobodies? And there's no reason for somebody to sink their own money into such a project because of the lack of payoff. Today, I can self-bootstrap by making smaller games and building up cash reserves, if I want. Or I can put away some money in my day job, like I am now, to actually build what I want to build and what I think will be well-received and make more value back for me than the money and time I'll need to sink into it to create it. Why would I risk my own money, and that much time, in a system where I'll get nothing back for it? (Subscription services are not a solution; not every game is World of Warcraft, and I'd argue that none should be.) "I'm going to need $100,000 (or, for something where you'd actually have to hire multiple people, $X,000,000) to make a video game." "Yeah, right. Don't let the door hit you on the way out." While I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, every rebuttal to this I've ever seen requires a lot of handwaving and an assumption of active and knowledgeable participation on the part of end consumers. To be honest, I don't expect investor-level behavior out of consumers; I expect a lot of yelling about how something is X when they "already paid for" something very slightly but to them critically different than X, but not much in the way of useful, constructive development-centric criticism. It's not their bag.

Dove 15y ago
who's going to pony up the cash for the next Half-Life (not the next Valve game, but the next product on that level) up-front when dealing with nobodies? While I acknowledge that it doesn't seem to make economic sense, I have a great deal of respect for how people seem to be actually behaving. True nobodies can raise six figures on Kickstarter right now. I can only imagine what would happen if a somebody tried. If Valve put HL3 on Kickstarter, might they raise the necessary funds? I kinda think they might.
- eropple 15y ago
  And how do you create that "somebody" in a world hostile to self-bootstrapping? The only option I see is to spend a significant (and economically fairly stupid because of the opportunity costs you give up in doing so) amount of time incrementally building larger and larger projects, hoping that you're still enough of the flavor-of-the-month that people will continue to fund you. (For an example of why I'm skeptical of this sort of things, I'd suggest watching Mojang's Scrolls title upon release. Edstradamus predicts notable failure.) Valve, with the original Half-Life didn't come completely out of nowhere, but it was pretty close. I am confident enough to say that it wouldn't have happened if they had to use a Kickstarter clone. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I can't think of a case where a creative work running, say, $5,000,000 (which is a moderate movie budget, if you have examples from that medium) was pre-funded by a crowd of consumers (i.e., excluding patronage, which I think most would agree is not a desirable model to return to) as opposed to profit-seeking investors.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    iD Software bootstrapped themselves with a low budget, shareware, no effective DRM, and an audience that largely wasn't big on buying things (teenage boys, as far as I can tell). The recent success of numerous "indy" games, smartphone app games, and in particular Zynga indicate to me that success in the market with a low budget (read: not making 'AAA games') is still not only feasible, but common.
    - 15y ago

wwwtyro 15y ago

I strongly approve, and I think they are probably part of the way things will be done in the future. Kickstarter is already making great forays into this field. It's serendipitous that you bring this up, as I am currently working on a startup that uses this very method!

Spoom 15y ago
Interesting. Something I've considered doing, though I'd first look at how to avoid the problems with these systems that the sibling post mentioned (how to get the initial investment, how to enable artists without a reputation to earn pledges, how to guarantee output once the threshold is reached, how to pledge in a binding but revokeable way, etc.) How are you working around these issues?
angersock 15y ago
Doing something similar. Hit me back at the address in my profile, if you would.
- Spoom 15y ago
  I'd also like to hear about this; just updated my profile with my email. Thanks!

cschwarm 15y ago

Although I'm not the OP, let me comment on these auction models: From an economic point of view, they suffer under high transaction costs. Transaction costs include legal stuff, distribution, and advertising. The later is probably the largest block. There's only a very small minority who likes to engage in the creation of works. The majority just wants to be entertained. For this, they need signals of quality, and the perceivable amount of advertising is such a signal.