My contrarian take on libertarians and IP continues. This time I look in some more detail at IP alternatives:

One is the "pay artists to produce" model brought to my attention by Crosbie Fitch. The idea is that the creator publicizes their availability to produce created works (songs, novels, whatever) and then, prior to release, asks the public to pony up. If the public is sufficiently generous, the material is released, if not, it isn't. After release, distribution of the material is uncontrolled; the payment received is a one-time lump sum, and quite possibly (likely) no more. Stephen King tried this, promising to release a chapter of a new work once sufficient payments had been received. He was paid only by 46 percent of those who downloaded the work, however, and shelved it.

My take on this model: It suffers from free rider problems; with a popular creator (like King), many will not pay because they will assume that others will do so. If the venture falls through, those who paid and got nothing will be quite annoyed. For an unpopular or unknown artist... I don't see how it works at all. Their first works would have to be distributed entirely free. Even a public performance of a song could eliminate any chance to sell it later. And the loss of any market after the date of first release (perhaps as soon as one minute afterwards) is a rather severe limitation.

Although I wish Stephen King and quidmusic luck with their ventures, I by no means have much faith in the future of a creative market limited to this model by a loss of copyright. The model also brings to mind that horrible person who demanded contributions of money, or he will kill the nice rabbit he has posted on his web site; I wish this person no luck at all.