But why would the fee be quite large? Who would pay such a large fee when immediately after they publish the book, rival publishers who paid nothing could print their own versions. Even if it was a kickstarter model with decentralized payments from individuals, a large number of people would simply wait until the kickstarter was over and the book published to get it for free. Imagin that was the case with kickstarters now: How many people would pre-pay for products that have no quarantee of delivery if they knew that waiting would earn them the item for free? Again, even if there was a guarantee the product would be finished, those who wait would still get it for free.

I'm not saying this couldn't work, in theory, but I think in practice that the # of parasites has the potential to make such a model unworkable. But maybe not! I'd be perfectly happy if you're right and it worked.

The entire point of the Kickstarter model is to solve collective action problems of that kind. It's in the individual's interest to contribute, because otherwise the project might not reach its funding threshold, or might have trouble reaching the 'stretch' goal that some care about. This ensures that the 'funding' issue is solved, at least.

Who would be contributing to this Kickstarter? People who already know her, and know that her books are good? That's not where the real money is, or the measurement of market value of an author's labor; the money is in the flow of cash from consumers.

More generally, non-excludable goods do not work well within a free market system. If you want them produced, you either set up a state mechanism for funding them (which many countries do for e.g. film, by creating national film funds), or you somehow make them excludable (e.g. through copyright). The other options aren't really effective.

You're pointing to an information problem that has little to do with non-excludability. A prospective funder faces the exact same issue anyway! And crowdfunding has been used to fund many sorts of good/service provision where non-rivalry is an issue. It does appear to work quite a bit better than other market-based options.

The exact opposite would happen. No publisher would pay very much for rights to a book that they cannot defend. Once that book hits the shelves, everyone with a printing press will be copying it and selling it at cost, which will undercut the first publisher because they need to include royalties in the price. They certainly aren't going to print a million copies if they aren't sure that they can sell them before someone starts copying them, so that would naturally limit the size of launches, further driving down the value of a manuscript.

There'd be a small first-mover advantage for being the first to print a book and smaller operations not worth copying would still operate but J.K. Rowling wouldn't be a billionaire.

In this case, the "rights" would not be those of a book publisher but those of a patron/sponsor. Being among the persons or corporate entities who e.g. J.K. Rowling officially acknowledges as the "sponsors" of her work would create a lot of clout, and with that a lot of very real value. Authors used to be funded like that before the current copyright-based system became predominant; it's not just a theoretical model.

I suppose she'd be able to sell "official copies" or something akin to that, but no matter what she's still not capturing as much of the value she created if she cannot assert a copyright. There's also nothing in copyright law precluding her from also getting sponsors. If anything, copyright law makes it clearer where everyone stands and so makes connecting writers and sponsors (or employers through a work-for-hire agreement) much easier.

> she's still not capturing as much of the value she created if she cannot assert a copyright

No one's disputing that. But she's also creating a lot more value at the same time. It's a wash.

It's not a wash for her, though, which may change her decisions to actually produce the work.

If the model is so good, what is preventing her from doing it now? There is nothing in law saying you have to copyright your books, she could simply release it under creative commons. What even qualifies you to know what is best for authors and publishers? I love how so many people love volunteering other peoples work for free or propose they jump through hoop in some byzantine system to make money in a way that is acceptable to you.

> I love how so many people love volunteering other peoples work for free or propose they jump through hoop in some byzantine system to make money in a way that is acceptable to you.

Yes, that's called democracy. Copyright must be a system that is acceptable to most of us. In fact, copyright itself is more "byzantine" than just having the State issue a stipend to anyone who produces a work of art - yet must we be OK with such a solution?

Similarly, Joseph Galambos considered that people who coined words were due a royalty when they were used. Is is unfair that we decide to use that work for free instead?

Copyright has the force of the state behind it obviously it's going to beat out any solution that doesn't.

In the days before the Berne convention, US publishers copied British books without paying the authors, which of course made the British authors unhappy. In some cases, because there was a bit of a first mover advantage, publishers would send their agents to London to acquire copies of the plates for popular authors as quickly as possible, and were willing to pay a fee for this.

What would the fee mechanism be for her very first book? Who would pay it? Remember, this book was so risky that she was rejected by quite a number of publishers.

Copyright is also the tool of open source code licensing. How exactly would a viral license operate when, lacking copyright, the authors have nothing to license?

While true, and I am willing to work with (and contribute to) software licensed by GPL and other free software licenses, my own programs are all under the public domain, because I am against copyright. I believe in reducing rather than increasing legislation, in general, so that would mean is better to abolish copyright. Even so, if copyright is abolished and then someone does copy it and won't release the source code, someone can legally reverse engineer it anyways, give them a bad reputation, or whatever else it may be. Furthermore, abolishing copyright would not mean abolishing trademarks, so you can still refuse to grant permission to use your trademark. (I also think that in addition to abolishing copyright, patents should also be abolished. Trademarks should not be abolished, but perhaps its scope should be reduced.)