> I'm thinking of the model that: Profit should be made up by charging more than the cost of duplication.

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.

> That's what we already do.

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.

Copyright has already been incorporated into capitalism. It's already part of the model. Intellectual property is just another form of property.

But still, I don't get how this is related. I'm not following your point. None of what I've said is related to copyright or IP

> I'm not sure that we have a name for the economic model I'm thinking of. I think "capitalism" is too high-level or broad for the system I'm talking about. I'm thinking of the model that: Profit should be made up by charging more than the cost of duplication.

That's the existing scenario/how the world works. The model is an intended effect of copyright.

I think that's partially right. I think that's more of a leftover from when manufacturing physical items cost resources to create. The current problem is that we've carried that over to the digital world for IP reasons, as you've stated, but it doesn't make any sense to keep.