Apologies for the late reply, I've only just seen yours. If you'd like you can contact me by email to continue the discussion (HN username at protonmail).

Q: I don’t think the model of music royalties ... could do any of these things ...

My larger point is that the money is already in the system, and is being paid by households. Only that it's via advertising with multiple perverse effects on the media ecosystem itself.

Some examples I've addressed in earlier posts:

<https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/23twec/weaponi...>

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11592888>

You're being vague as to what the failings of a royalty-based system are, and whilst I could presume some of those problems and/or possible solutions (<coff> UBI <coff>). Much of what I'd suggest revolves around a number of concepts:

1. That content-creation as it exists is a high-stakes, infrequent-reward, winner-take-most sweepstakes. Much of existing publishing and distribution actually mitigates for this, as with "tentpost" cinema, music, and publishing titles and/or talents.

2. That in-depth detailed work in journalism, education, science, and technology especially relies strongly on durable institutions with a reliable income as well as defence mechanisms against the various forms of attacks and corruption these draw, e.g., libel, co-option. Large publishers often have strong legal defence teams, as well as contracts. Educational institutions, NGOs, publishing groups, news organisations, and creators' guilds might be possible such durable organisations. Groups need not be large. I'm reminded of visiting a local library to inquire about free room reservations: these were available to any citizen group requesting one, where a group was three or more people. There's power in numbers, especially when given an organisational banner.

3. That "reward for audience" is itself a fairly poor compensation metric. Yes, there are justifiable winners, but there are far too many unjustified losers, or works recongised only at much remove for their quality. Some way of balancing this out might be useful, and I'm open for ideas and criticisms.

4. That remunerative reward is a rather poor inducement for quality authorship. I discovered my spirit animal in Schopenhauer's "On Authorship": <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Literature/On_Auth...>

Q: It would mark the death...

To which I respond:

- The system I propose would not be the only compensation mechanism, but it would be a guaranteed one (perhaps again with other mechanisms such as UBI and group/guild organisations).

- I'm honestly baffled as to why you think that dissenting voices would not have access to such a system. It is universal to both audience and creators.

- The extant system has marked the death of numerous forms of desirable and even essential authorship, most notably quality, incisive, independent local journalism, but extending to artistic works in text, audio, and film.

- What conditions would promote the types of works you describe? How well, exactly, does the present model work for those?

- Complaints about the rise of a massive rent-seeking class of mediocre and unchallenging artists in light of the present state of publishing seem ... archly ironic.

Again, if you care to follow up by email, invitation's open. I'm also @dredmorbius@toot.cat on the Fediverse.