Musicians: What about doing actual work for their money, like playing music? Or just do it in their freetime. I can do without musicians, who are in it for money first.
Computer-Games: I guess games that rely on the publisher's infrastructure are covered (MMOs)(subscriptions, µtransactions). For the rest I have no concrete idea, but I'm quite confident, there'd be a way. I know enough people, who prefer buying over "stealing" just to support the creator.
Movies, TV shows: Some kind of culture tax maybe? I don't know. BTW, I don't see a need to provide a way for actors to earn millions in a few weaks. Neither for athletes nor anyone alse, but that would be another off-topic topic.
Music: There are many musicians who make their money off of concerts and such, as well as selling merchandise. I have heard from several professional musicians that there isn't all that much money in album sales. Because of this, some have decided to handle all of that themselves instead of having most of the money that can be made off of albums going to all the middle men. The end result appears to be lower prices for fans (not to mention a personal touch, which matters to many) and more money from each album sale goes to those that actually put in the effort to make the music.
This seems to be a good option with the internet. This seems to be the sort of thing that came from punk (although it did exist prior to that, but with a lot of exploitation of the musicians, so not so good for them most of the time). Indie labels and DIY were a good start, and this led to mail order and subscription music before the rise of the internet. Obviously this will not work for all types of musicians, however many of those exceptions are getting regular paychecks other ways (paid for the piece/project, being on hand for when they are required, etc).
Games (and other software: I think there are plenty of good options that have been tried, although I really only know about the consumer side of it. Some of this isn't just applicable to games, but fits all software. I know of some projects (that are still maintained) where the user pays what they feel is appropriate. Often those that "purchase" it will later give larger donations. I wish this approach was more common.
There are a handful of software projects, some of which are available free of charge, that I wish to financially support. A major one, with no cost associated with its use, has a handful of different ways to support the project. I will either end up buying merchandise or making a small donation soon. There are some others where there is a cost associated with it, and I am in that weird place that I hate to be where I want to use it but cannot afford it atm. So I pirated one I plan on "buying" at least one copy of (btw, I do this with music also, although sometimes it is impossible to purchase small releases that are copied and distributed by the musicians). (One copy will be for me, one copy for someone else that may be interested, and possibly a third copy for
@ptitSeb if I think it could benefit from optimization for the Pyra, or just as a thank you to him.) The funny thing about this is that there used to be higher support tiers, and I was going to pay for one of those, however I had no time for the game at the time. I shouldn't have waited...
I am not trying to discuss what is right or wrong, as often comes up with piracy. The important part, as I see it, is that people make things that people want to use or play, and get what the USER thinks it is worth. One contributing factor to pirating software is the high price. There will always be people that won't pay. There are also those that have been "burned" due to high prices and low quality (although many Microsoft customers don't seem to mind
). Then you have those like me that either want to test it out first (demos, when available aren't always adequate, and watching/reading reviews is extremely unreliable), or want to make sure they are getting their money's worth for it. (And of course, those that can't afford it.) I know this is probably oversimplification, but which is better, a handful of paid users that paid a higher amount, or many happy customers that paid less and are actively spreading the word. If you make the same off of both, the latter seems to have a potential for a much higher return on investment in the long run. Bring things like shareware back. (I am aware it is still around in various forms, but freemium software and such often suck. I am also aware of how shareware can lead to lower quality, or watered down software.)
Actors, athletes, and other highly paid personalities: I have thought about this before. I really don't have a good solution. Many of these people are way over paid.
Television shows and movies: Here is a crazy idea: Maybe advertisers can pay for it. Product placement, sponsorships (with the company or product name prominently stated and displayed before the show starts) and ads played during breaks. Hmmm, seems like these ideas are already being used, so why should the viewer pay even more to be abble to watch these ads? Even on youtube and such, you get ads presented to you (unless you have them blocked). Youtube is just an example, as I know they are owned by a company many dislike. One of the things I hated about Hulu is that we paid for it, yet we still got interruptions for ads. I have no clue why it should be any more acceptable for things like this with cable and satellite television providers, although I do think they should get paid for their infrastructure and everything else. It would be nice if advertisers paid a little (lot) more of that. This can also be carried over into ISPs, in some ways, but I really don't want to get into that debate. It would be nice if reliable internet access was provided at a decent speed for no cost, but I can't even get free water unless I collect the polluted rain.
I think I have been wrong enough for one post, now.
