The third essay in Dan Kohn’s series, “Steal This Essay 3: How to Finance Content Creation,” offers the same old tired solutions for paying content creators for their work:
- Government subsidies (government decides which writers deserve to be funded)
- Micropatronage (the public broadcasting model)
- Foundations and corporate philanthrophy (corporations decide which writers deserve to be funded)
- Atoms associated with the bits (let’s all sell t-shirts)
I was really hoping for more better, but I guess it’s just not going to happen. Kohn’s discussion mailing list has had three posts: a rant and two spams.
Kohn’s first and third options are unworkable. Under these models, worth will be equated with popularity and only the most pedestrian works will get funded. I most prefer the micropatronage model, but so far that hasn’t worked here at all. Kohn’s fourth option, selling atoms associated with the bits favors only the largest content aggregators. Independent artists and writers are quickly learning that this model is simply a small twist on the corporate subsidy model, with all the problems associated with corporate patronage.
The dilemma is clear: Writers should be fairly compensated for their work and what’s needed is a completely new financing model, but no one even wants to talk about the issue.
0 responses. Comments closed for this article.