I'm thinking of the model that: Profit should be made up by charging more than the cost of duplication.
I would argue that Kickstarter does the same thing as the current model, but has none of the same safeties in place. I agree it's not apples to oranges, but I think we could put those legal safeties in place.
That's what we already do. Duplicating content without the copyright owner's permission is copyright infringement which is illegal.
> I would argue that Kickstarter does the same thing as the current model, but has none of the same safeties in place. I agree it's not apples to oranges, but I think we could put those legal safeties in place.
Corporate bonds are a relatively safe way to lend.
Right. And that's the model that needs to change to reflect reality.
> Duplicating content without the copyright owner's permission is copyright infringement which is illegal.
Yes, but I don't see how that addresses my point?
> Corporate bonds are a relatively safe way to lend.
There are multiple safe ways to spend, my point is that spending up front more accurately reflects the costs in the current system.
That's the existing scenario/how the world works. The model is an intended effect of copyright.
How does the duplication of digital goods being free mean capitalism no longer makes sense?
Kickstarter is essentially risky lending and charity (you put in money and possibly get rewards which may not be commensurate with the money you put in).