inspired by the recent SlashDot discussion [Ask Slashdot: Fair IP Laws?]
most stuff copied/edited from others' posts (yeah, how ironic) at [this thread] from users FreeUser and kirkjobsluder.
Patronage
It is how most programmers are paid today (most of us work on inhouse software, NOT retail software being sold under copyright.). It is also how most screen actors are paid, in another sense.
Patronage Cons
contractual restrictions prevent freedom ====
The restrictions that go along with patronage are even more hostile to freedom than copyright. For example, patronage can place restrictions such as "non-competition," meaning I can't take my expertise with me when I leave. In addition this just shifts the issue from an individual creator holding a copyright to a corporation holding the copyright.
but maybe this harm is already there in the current system
can't get much money for very valuable works
example: Studio pays Britney Spears to make a record, they charge a modest fee for distributing copies and being the first on the market. They make a mint, Britney Spears makes $20 an hour. A patronage-only scheme in which only labor is compensated, and the actual created work is considered to be not property doesn't give the artist much room to negotiate more compensation.
again, this already seems to be happening
DerivativeIncome
Example: you don't make money on the music, you make money on the performance of the music. This won't change how most bands make money, for example, as they receive most of their revinues from concerts (while their publishers, the record companies, rake in millions via their control of the copyright itself, selling copies of the music on CDs, etc.).
Nothing but (legally required) AuthorshipCredit
Tax Exemption (with or without tax payout) for the Creator
(give the creator a competative edge in distribution)
Perhaps a corrallary Exemption of Authorship that exemps works sold by the artist (or a duly appointed publisher) from taxes that would be levied against a competitor selling the same book/record/etc. you could give artists an economic edge over others, not authorized but nevertheless entitled to publish and sell a work, without granting them an all out monopoly, or restrict how others might use or incorporate said works in their derivative material.
If you feel this is insufficient to protect artists from more predatory, Disney-like competition, then take a portion of the taxes being levied against unauthorized copies of the artist's work being sold and pass them on to the author. A society can adjust this amount, anywhere from 0% to 100% of said taxes levied, according to where they see the balance of artist's advantage v. free market as best suited to their society.
There are literally dozens if not hundreds of possible approaches and variations on this kind of concept, where systems could be put in place that are relatively unobtrusive, help stack the free market in favor of the creative artist without throwing away the free market altogether and granting artificial monopolies the government then has to go around in jackboots enforcing.
generic cons (problems with almost all non-copyright approaches)
only distributors profit
large corporations will make bank off your independent work because they will be able to provide better distribution; in the meantime you will make little or nothing. example: I sell my work for $2.00 a download on kirkjobsluder.org covering the cost of my website and getting pocket money. Disney moves in to kirkjobsluder.com and sells it for $.25. Disney can use its advertising muscle to get my work into the top 100 and it makes thousands of dollars. When my page is shut down, they raise their prices. this seems unfair.
(Counterpoint to some of the above)
This problem is alleviated to a large extent by the incredibly inexpensive method of mass distribution known as the Internet. In the example above, if Disney moves in and begins selling kirkjobsluder.org's material for $0.25, kirkjobsluder.org can lower their prices to $0.25 as well, and probably still make money on each sale over and above the ISP and bandwidth costs. Couple this with a tax exemption or even tax payout (as described in the "Exemption of Authorship" above) where every copy Disney sells results in a payout to kirjobsluder.org, and you have a powerful force tipping the free market in favor of the original artist.
no control over distribution ====
for example, the source code provision in the GPL would be impossible.
i would argue that this is a good thing -- on balance, distribution restrictions are bad.
----