2 ms·
If you want to look at an intellectual property revenue distribution system that has some of these traits already you can look to compulsory licensing schemes l
by olefoo 11y ago
If you want to look at an intellectual property revenue distribution system that has some of these traits already you can look to compulsory licensing schemes like the one used for radio airplay in the US.
The basic idea of a compulsory licensing scheme is that publishers are compelled to take and producers to offer a license to play any item covered by the scheme. And that publishers pay into a pool which is distributed to producers based on usage.
An idea like this would be actively resisted by the large internet publishing companies ( Google and Facebook, etc. ) but would be much more fair for small producers.
Unfortunately producers do not have much of a lobby in the current environment.
- quadrangle 11y agoASCAP et al specifically take money out of the system and give it almost entirely to a small fraction of the most wealthy and successful. It's an absolutely corrupt and absurd way to fund art. Also, heard about Payola? Back in the 1950's record label paid to get their stuff on the radio, just like people pay for sponsored content today. Attention is the scarce resource here. The only issues with the Facebook and YouTube things here today are: they are undemocratic, show ads, and support plagiarism. Sharing of cultural works with credit and without ads is perfectly fine and is promotion for artists.