To so categorize them now would cause a radical and unwarranted change in existing law. I respectfully disagree. Under this formulation, it is quite common for a licensor to grant an exclusive license, limited in time and place, against payment of a royalty. It certainly is not a secured transaction under current Article 9, and should not become one under Revised Article 9. 2. I suggest it is certainly not.
Informational works can be fragile constructs.
Their value is often not known before their first release to the public. For these reasons, it is common to have a variety of royalty payment structures. Performance may be dismal, and the advance may never be recouped, so that it in effect becomes a flat payment for acquisition of an ownership interest. This is still a license, not a disguised purchase, even if the licensor retains the right to cancel for non-payment. Sometimes an additional advance or guarantee is due.