| the concept of rewarding creativity by "printing instances as if it were money" is what ultimately is flawed, information is too easy to copy or paraphrase to be sold as instantiations of knowledge. that is not to say we shouldn't reward creativity. it seems the only defensible solution is to organize a single sale towards the public domain, but that brings a new problem: how do we value the contribution? the printing-copies-of-information-and-sell-as-monopoly could provide feedback on book sales etc, so that prices could adjust. with each new film, book, scientific article, ... single sale towards the public domain is much harder to quantify it seems. One could categorize approaches as either: * reputation based (people liked the previous album / article / ... ) and the content creator starts listing a high price, and slowly allows it to decay, and somehow the public pays for it at a price they approve of * post-evaluation: the sale happens to the public, and the reward will be determined by future usage: the public effectively votes by usage and public funds are allocated accordingly (so the content might be dormant for a while, and suddenly be discovered and start generating more revenue for the author) * some sort of democracy (but conventional incumbent institutions tend to get hijacked by regulatory capture...) For the post-evaluation each jurisdiction could have their own sell-to-local-public-domain platform; and platforms that abuse authors will simply given less offers for future works... |