It's a real problem. On one hand you have potential/future content providers, the people who will (if things turn out that way) produce the modules, maps, art assets, stated tokens, specialized decks and so forth the Roll20 users will, I expect, come to depend on, and that Roll20 will, I expect, therefore come to depend on. The sooner they know what they can make to share, how they will share it, and on what terms, the sooner they can get started, which is better for their future customers and thus better for Roll20.
On the other hand, the Roll20 developers probably aren't in a position to make a reliable announcement about what will be shareable, on what terms, and how until they finish beta testing and become quite sure what kinds of stuff there is going to be and in broad terms how it is going to be implemented, stored, etc. We have to remember that although most of us are using Roll20 for our own fun already and not in a critical, envelope-pushing way, for the moment the product has not been released and our freedom to use it is for testing purposes and as a quid pro quo for work as testers.
I expect that one of the important revenue streams that will cover the continuing costs of Roll20's servers, Internet connection, and legal bills is going to be a commission on sales in the market for Roll20 modules and other assets. The developers probably haven't decided on that yet, perhaps aren't yet in a position to make the decision with well-founded confidence. But they have to keep that option open. And unfortunately a free sharing facility would undermine it. With free sharing an unscrupulous content provider could sell his or her content directly to users, thus bypassing the market-place and cutting Roll20 out of its commission, and thus threatening the revenues that we count on to make the basic facility "free".
There is also a significant issue to do with secondary copying. The technically obvious way to support copying, and the one that is in the most straightforward way consistent with raising revenue by charging for storage allowances, would be to make a duplicate of the shared files and records. The obvious problem with that is that once I have a copy of your module there will be nothing to stop me from freely sharing it with someone else, including your potential other customers or people you don't want to show it to. Also, there would be nothing to stop me from making additions and alterations that offended your artisti sensibilities and damaged your reputation as a content provider, and then freely sharing that.
So I endorse your call for a road-map to future sharing and the future market-place for modules and other assets to be issued as soon as may become convenient. But I am afraid that a free sharing feature would threaten the rights of content providers (the right to control or prevent copying of their work, the right to integrity of their work, and the right to be known as the author of their work) and also threaten the revenues that will make Roll20 financially sustainable. Given the competing claims on developers' time I am afraid that I don't see a free copying capability as likely during the beta test.
