Warren Beatty’s 1981 Oscar-winning movie "Reds," a "political masterpiece" according to Entertainment Weekly, has just been released on DVD. In EW’s interview with Beatty about the movie, he discusses how "Reds" could not be made today: it costs too much for an indie film, and the studios don’t see it as a moneymaking venture.

Yet "Reds" and movies like it have unquestionable social and artistic value. The cinematic medium’s realistic nature conveys emotion with an unavoidable and universal immediacy that few authors or painters can evoke.

Many thought-provoking, artistic and otherwise entertaining movies and TV shows either are not made or are cancelled prematurely due to the studios’ need to focus on the bottom line. Joss Whedon’s series "Firefly," for instance, is not only critically acclaimed, but one of the greatest TV series ever, but it was cancelled after one season because the studio didn’t see it as a moneymaker. The stereotypical "starving artist" has been responsible for many works of art-James Joyce, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Vincent van Gogh-but starving artists cannot make movies.

Nor can the studios make films and series according to MGM’s old motto "Ars Gratia Artis," "art for art’s sake." They are businesses and must guarantee a return on their investments to exist. Even indie filmmakers have to make ends meet. Thus, expensive works that don’t promise profits, regardless of their other merits, don’t get made. Who knows what great movies and shows have been lost or cancelled that didn’t promise a material reward?

Historically, royal or noble patronage provided support for many of the world’s great artists. Today, a similar system could provide funding for movies and series that are beyond today’s profit-driven industry. One problem with patronage, especially patronage with only one patron, is preventing him from warping the work. This threat may harm some works or, given how strongly artists feel about their work, prevent the work from being completed.

Spreading the funding out among a larger group of people reduces the effects of any dominating personality on the project, though it does raise the potential issue of having too many sponsors with the ability to veto the project. Even so, patronage represents a viable alternative to the standard model, even if it requires thousands of people.

The Internet in particular provides a medium by which large, geographically-scattered groups may provide support for a single project. Web comics such as Something Positive and Questionable Content, show that serialized artist efforts can and will be supported by their fans. Admittedly, the comics are considerably less expensive to make than a series, but they still provide a useful proof of concept.

Internet-age technology and thinking also provide the means of distributing movies and series. BitTorrent greatly reduces the cost of distributing a movie by spreading the hosting and data transfer costs among all of the people downloading it. Since works paid for by patronage are already paid for up front and truly are ars gratia artis, moviemakers can use permissive copyright licenses, like those of the Creative Commons, to guarantee that the work is accessible to anyone while preventing others from profiting from their work.

The social benefits go beyond just the art. Even as file sharing has become possible and culturally acceptable, profit-driven studios have warped copyright law to claim licensing restrictions that don’t include copying rights and attempt to scare viewers with misinformation about their rights—including lies such as "copying is theft." Laws such as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the Copyright Term Extension Act are turning copyright law, intended to enrich the public domain by providing incentive for new works, into an information control system that both chills scientific advancement and prevents us from sharing our emotions and thoughts with each other. Since patronized works are paid for upfront, there is no profit motive in limiting the freedoms of viewers who wish to share their favorite films and series with their friends or limiting libraries from making the works accessible to everyone.

The key hurdle to a distributed patronage model for funding movies is the way we think about movies and TV series. Habit dictates that we buy things and immediately, or nearly immediately, receive them. Also, since the movie is paid for upfront, there is no chance to ask a friend about the show or read a review on it.

However, production groups can use previous works, trailers and concept outlines to indicate the merit of their work. Also, serialized production, similar to how comic strips and some books are distributed, allow the works to be completed a little at a time, reducing the immediate cost of the work.

Admittedly, patronage may never supercede the current model of movie production, but its benefits, both social and artistic, are apparent enough that it should be given a chance.