Very happy to be wrong about everything in exchange for an even better system. In that case let’s hope I am wrong.
The apparent preconditions for a system we’d want and which would continue to be useful would be:
Unmetered unconstrained bandwidth, which we provide by owning the the physical elements of the
No ability to coerce attention- any system where attention can be coerced isn’t a free system- its a system of exploitation.
A natural consequence of this system is that buyers will completely determine price. They will pay when and if and only what they feel any content or experiences are worth. They will pay after-the-fact and mainly to encourage future works. This will be a system that will have universal open access as there would only be disadvantages to trying to restrict or enclose as that would limit exposure in a global system where there would basically be no distribution costs and no marketing costs. Since there would be no ability to coerce attention, content would be found through honest search and trending. This would yield something much closer to true cost than the collusive supplier price fixing we have today. In such a system trust is actually possible. Having no ability to coerce attention anything behind a paywall would get ignored. This already happens to an extent with entities like Pirate Bay and Bit Torrent.
The alternative is pay per view cable with ads. Which, since it has ads, is not a free system as we aren’t the customers. It’s a system where our money and attention are used against us for unlimited exploitation. The ads, and sponsors mean it it is not a free media/medium and it is meant to exploit us which is obvious from experiences as its content is infomerical-propaganda and will only become more so without end. Its a cancer, the continued existence of which will the end of any alternatives.
Now we are either moving toward one of these systems or the other. I don’t think we can stay in the middle long. We either have free media or mediums or we don’t. We either have systems that serve us honestly with transparency, privacy and openness or we have the other side with coerced attention, censorship, spying, secrecy… torture, loss of habeaus corpus, disappearing- nuclear war.
There is scare tactic propaganda out there, remember how quick they are to tell you that defiance of their content regimes is jail and unethical. Those would would return us to paying thousands of times too much for a song i.e., pay for a whole CD when you only wanted one and pay thousands of times too much for the one song with the price of reduced diversity and quality- they also continue with scare tactics even though they’ve been paid off many times over for any useful service they ever provided. For instance, “you won’t have movies” or “they won’t be quality.” Maybe the special effects would drop for a time and @Russell it would be less about “Campbell’s Monomyth” and at least we really would would be the hero and not simply “the protagonist.” Real time effects are already out and that will get to the point here it can run on a lap top so any dip in big budget effects would drop off.
Look at the current console market. That system is broken completely. It would be better for game makers if end users simply traded their used games for free endlessly which they already do. But they have the worst system where Game Stop turns the games for almost full price repeatedly they are already squeezed but there are some ok games. The Xbox One experiences shows the public will not let up on them- system isn’t good enough as it is. In the early computer games market the games were of higher quality but there was rampant trading. Those companies were trying to stop the trading they were still healthy companies- more of them relative to the size of the market. The quality and diversity of the games was better. The useless anti-piracy console enclosure tactics lead to Game Stop. And console games were a huge step down in many ways. Think of the decades of console save game conventions
Artists don’t make less under the current system in music where the free swapping has always been hilariously grossly understated. They made next to nothing under the old system with rare loss leaders. Anything would be an improvement. iTunes came about because of the background of trading. Remember how loud the useless labels bragged when later under iTunes that got some tiny bit of price control back. They should never ever have that nor any ability to do any marketing. The public doesn’t to be abused by stupid premium games or any of that nonsense. It needs to be a pure buyer’s market. And with a functioning internet these old extreme rip off business models won’t be speech but will be absolute felony illegal some mix of Ponzie and revived gouging will recognize them as crime and censorship.
Because of its collusive scale, Walmart offers a hint of the improvement already. You can buy something, and take it back with no questions asked for full refund. Note, this is with tangible goods. Yes, these changes would be continuation of a huge and increasing revenue reduction reduction for an industry and many firms within it. But that’s been the nature of the net and something which collusion is trying to stop in the name of social uselessness. Something on the order of 100x revenue reduction for industries in transition on the net. But in this case this is something we desperately need and want. These firms and industries sold us out, recent revelations have been making more people aware just how much they’ve been part of a noose around the public’s neck. Also this isn’t like the car or plane come after trains. Trains didn’t disappear, cable, telecom and sponsored media will disappear but be replaced with economies that actually work for people vice sending them into an accelerating downward spiral.
So it will be a pure buyers market. And its not a question of buyers and suppliers coming to a mutual agreement on price. On the other hand its a virtual market with almost zero manufacture or distribution costs.