Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop...
by zozbot234 on Monday April 27, 2020 @07:26PM
(#23001419)
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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop...
by azernik on Monday April 27, 2020 @10:09PM
(#23002606)
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.
Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop...
by zozbot234 on Monday April 27, 2020 @10:32PM
(#23002723)
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.