[UA] Bizarre text distribution model

[corey liss]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:00:57AM -0600, Greg Stolze wrote:
> 
> How do you get around this?  Writers are getting fucked (fiscal-wise) when
> their work gets pirated and given away free.  Ditto musicians, ditto film
> makers.  Most people are willing to pay something for their entertainment
> but only (reasonably enough) if they can't easily get it for nothing.
> 
> It occurred to me that the solution is a ransom model.
> 
[...]
> Instead, what if I do this?  I set up a web site with a PayPal link and an
> address where people can send their checks and cash.  You can pay as much,
> or as little, as you want, but until I hit my goal -- say, a price reached
> by doing a word count and multiplying it by six cents -- nobody sees the
> book.  However, when I hit that goal, I release the whole text, to
> everyone, for nothing.

I've actually thought about something similar, though I called it "distributed
patronage" rather than "ransom". :) I think it could work, if the creator has
a sufficient fan base at the outset, and sets monetary expectations
appropriate for the size of his fan base.  (E.g., Stephen King might
be able to set a $100K limit, but, well, I don't think anyone in the
gaming industry could manage that.)  Newbies would have to use some
other distribution method until they built up a fan base, or else
publish lengthy teasers and set their expectations *really* low at
first.

[...]
> The disadvantages are equally clear: I need a good reputation to make this
> work, since that's what I'm trading on.  If I set my goal at $4000 and
> people only pre-pay $2000, what do I do then?  If I release it anyway, the
> system collapses because everyone with a grasp of economics figures, "I
> shouldn't pay -- in a year, Stolze will cave and release it regardless".
> If I don't release it, I've effectively stolen two grand from my closest
> fans, which is not a route I want to go.  

Options:

** You openly tell people that they are acting as your patrons:  They're
supporting you in the hopes that you will produce a creative work that they
find of value.  Like all art patronage, there is a risk that your creativity
will dry up.  They need to accept this risk.

** You use a modified pledge model instead of immediate donation: People
pledge an amount of money, but they don't actually pay until you reach
your goal.  When you neared the goal, you'd probably have to contact
everyone who has pledged and confirm that they're still good for it,
which adds some overhead and can make the end frustrating if a bunch
of people waffle or back out; but it means you never take money if you
don't deliver product.

** You develop some kind of escrow model: People pay immediately, but
you don't actually get to touch the money until you deliver the
product.  If your goal is not met by some date -- either a fixed date
for everyone, or a variable date set by each patron at the time they
pay -- their money is returned.  There's a *lot* more administrative
overhead with this option, but it means that people can't waffle; once
they're committed, they're committed, at least until the "dead" date.
This one would probably also need to be checked out with a tax lawyer.

** Some combination of the above.

Plus, I can never earn more than
> what I get up front.  (Not that long-term royalties have ever paid out for
> me in gaming.  But I suppose there's still time.)

I don't see a way around this one.  In large part, it arises because
this *is* a return to a Renaissance-style patronage model, rather than
a real "copyright" model -- closer to work-for-hire than "real"
publishing.  It may be something that anyone using this model just
needs to accept.


-Corey