Copyright is dead. Next concept:

Imagine for instance an online art gallery. Extremely high-res image files are for sale. Each one is a unique scan, the only one done of a particular physical painting. The images would be priced just as physical art is-- one expensive price for just one buyer. If the buyer wanted they could keep the bits secret-- and be, like a RL art collector, the sole owner-- or if they wanted they could share the resulting file with everyone, and be honored as its Liberator.

Going further with that idea, imagine if the buyer was actually a collective. A piece of art with an asking price of $100 is bought by 2000 people, collectively; they each pay five cents. You could go through the thumbnail galleries, have fun looking at art, and incidentally check off which pictures you'd be willing to pay five cents for. Once things hit their threshholds, they automatically are sold, and all of the buyers' accounts are given access to the file.

This sort of system would enable things to be sold for much smaller stakes, but at the same time it wouldn't preclude making millions of dollars on things. If a popular musician put up their new album for a million dollar ransom, it's quite conceivable that their fans would make it happen. It would however make this a matter of genuine loyalty, and not just anonymous market forces.

<3
-- mungojelly, Nov 14 2005

"Buy this art or the kitten gets it!" http://www.epicycle...es/killerpussy3.jpg
[zen_tom, Aug 16 2007]

Nice idea, I think i'll give a tentative bun for this one. However I don't think it would work with musicians, those guys like to keep making money from heir 'art' as the years go by. Regular artist's are fairly happy to give up their work for a set fee (per painting).

Perhaps some musicians would embrace the idea as it may mean they get more of the profits (ie all of them!)

How would this affect people who wanted to buy the album/art after the threshold had been met? Would they need to canvas the original buyers for one who was willing to share or sell?

Your still getting my bun, for now. But some persuasive arguments against the idea might sway me :S

<%><
-- Salmon Of Doubt, Nov 14 2005


//Copyright is dead.//
When did that happen?
-- angel, Nov 14 2005


And what of software that interpolates low-res images into higher-res ones?
-- RayfordSteele, Nov 14 2005


What of it? You can't create detail that wasn't there in the original image. Interpolation stretches and blurs.

Of course in CSI programmes, the cops have magic on their side.
-- Texticle, Nov 14 2005


What [angel] says but this is still an interesting idea. I just don't think it works for fine art. In no way do I find a scan of, say, an oil painting anywhere near as satisfying as the oil painting itself and I doubt I'm alone in that opinion.
-- bristolz, Nov 14 2005


What [bris] said. Intellectual Property rights.. it's weird, but just as more and more of the world recognize the importance of ideas and innovation, IP seems to get into difficulties. Coincidence?
-- moomintroll, Nov 14 2005


bun for an innovative alternative to the increasingly unworkable copyright model.

This idea has a weakness though: It suffers from the collective prisoner's dilemma problem.
-- kinemojo, Aug 16 2007


I was expecting something along the lines of: An artist creates a number of works and shows them in a gallery - before the show ends, they announce that any unsold pieces will be destroyed.
-- zen_tom, Aug 16 2007


An artist putting their album up is like asking for a record deal. A studio could but it and then hold distribution rights or a group of fans could fund the artist. I think there is already a site where you say "I'd buy that album if it was released" then if enough people say that, the website produces the album.
-- marklar, Aug 16 2007



random, halfbakery