From: Ken Schafer
Excellently put. This is the essence of the discussion so far I
believe. I also feel it shows the flaw in the argument.
1. Is this true for the Reader? My guess is the number of people who
would say "I want YOU to write, here's MY money" is
vanishingly small
and that's the essential problem with tip jars and micropayments.
It is vanishingly small for artists with vanishingly small proportions of
people who actually like their art. However, once you focus only on the
artist and their audience of people who very much like their work, then a
significant portion of that audience will be interested enough to commission
the artist.
The essential problem with tip jars is that they represent a charitable gift
rather than a commissioning payment. You tend to give according to the value
you place on receipt, the benefit you obtained from a performance or copy of
the art, not its creation. I have a hunch that creation is far more
valuable, and that it will attract a higher price.
Tip: "Here's a penny for being such a good writer"
Payment: "I'll pay you a penny each time you write a new article - which I
am confident I shall enjoy"
Micropayments in the traditional 'microcharging' sense have problems because
they cut your promotional prospects stone dead, and dissuade 99% of your
potential customers given they can't overcome the decision cost to purchase.
All you're left with are the hard core stalwart customers who'd sell their
grannies to maintain access to your art.
I think the vast majority of Readers would say, "I want to be
entertained, informed and inspired by what SOMEBODY writes
but I have
so many free options I don't need to give YOU money for your writing
to fulfil that want."
Supply meets demand. Who'd have it any other way? Are we working on the
principle that artists deserve to be paid for their work (a rather erroneous
principle), or the principle that artists should be free to exchange their
labour in a free market?
Mostly, you won't be inclined to commission artists. However, sometimes you
will find artists, authors, photographers, programmers, who you will want to
commission to produce new work - irrespective of the availability of free
alternatives.
Art is not generally substitutable, e.g. "I don't care if it's free, I don't
want to read a thriller by Alistair MacLean, I want John le Carré to write
another spy novel goddammit!"
It's also a competitive market.
People will only get their wallets and bill folds out for the very best
artists. Moreover, they won't be inclined to pay for what they already have,
but for what they don't, i.e. further new works from their favourite
artists.
2. Is this true for the Writer? I don't think must Writers would say
"I want to write, I need money." My guess is most Writers would say
"I want to write and be read. I have other sources of money."
This is
what gives the Reader SO many options on what to read without any
guilt for being a free rider.
The writers who write for the love of writing may affect the market price
for reading matter, but they don't demonstrate the case that no writer can
expect to be paid to write. See The Long Tail.
'Free rider' is not a pejorative term when applied to science and the arts,
indeed we must all aspire to ride freely upon our cultural commonwealth. It
is more shameful that we have created the idea that art and knowledge are
scarce commodities to be consumed, and for which proper dues must be paid by
the consumer. It is a lucrative paradigm for publishers, but not the public,
and especially not the artists and scientists among them who are thus
prevented from sharing and building upon the work of their peers.
For example, there is no guilt in using GPL software without paying for it.
The only guilt would occur when commissioning the production of an
enhancement and defaulting on the payment of the commission.