Street Performer Protocol Model - Possible Solution to Piracy Issues

Rereading some topics of the copyright blog, among the anti-piracy holivars, I noticed references to such ambiguous entities as “All information should be free!” (This was well written by citizen LaggyLuke in this topic ) and “How can authors get remuneration for their work? ". Proponents of the first thesis in defense of piracy and downloading content from torrent-like services instead of buying licensed media led to the fact that the main amount of money from licenses does not come at all to the authors, but to the right holders (publishing houses, studios, etc.). And indeed it is. Totally free content would really nullify the problems of piracy and unfair enrichment of rights holders who have nothing to do with creativity. But here comes the second thesis: "How can authors get remuneration for their work?" Creativity for the sake of creativity is good, but you also want to eat. The absence of a material stimulus will not make the content better and it is difficult to realize all of its creative potential, being distracted by the “main” work.

The decision, as always, turned out to be somewhere in the middle.

I came across an interesting model: "Street Performer Protocol" (Protocol of a street musician). There is no Russian page on Wikipedia for this concept, so I will try to selectively translate and convey the essence of the model.

In this model, the author declares that he will give his work (book, music, video, program - not important) to free access after receiving a certain amount. Those who are interested in this material, transfer funds to the account of the author at some reliable intermediary. With the accumulation of the required amount - the money goes to the author, and the product - in the Public Domain (public domain). If the sum could not be collected for some specific time, then the money is returned to the payers. And how to be the author - his business. It is understood that the author has some kind of reputation. If he has already established himself as a good creator, then from time to time he can put the price higher, more people will pay him and everything will be more and more eager. You can build up a positive (or negative) reputation, for example, by publishing your work for free in the Public Domain.
')
Here is a model.

A slight indignation arose in my head: “Unfair! Some people pay, but everyone gets access! ” I'll try to offer a solution. When transferring the reward to the author, it is possible to give the work only to a paying group of people, and to share it only after a certain time. Time may depend on the reputation of the amount, it is already the details. So non-paid will receive less relevant material than those who spend money. This will be an incentive to reward the author. You can think of something else.

In my opinion, this model is closest to the consideration of the interests of both authors and consumers of works. From the chain “author-studio-user” or (as a rule) “author-studio-pirate-user”, extra 2 links are excluded. With the popularization of the author and creative growth, his income will increase due to an increase in the size of the contribution, but the works will not become more expensive for a particular user, due to the growth of the audience of the author.

I would like to discuss what other pros and cons are hidden in this model and what prevents its implementation?