Artist's Creativity: relinquishing IP can be profitable

Here’s an example that gives hope for the SAFE Network’s content reward model (publishers receive Safecoin for access to public data they upload and tag with a watermark).

Artist Open-Sources Work for Bitcoin; IP Advocates Stumped

In a move that has left intellectual “property” (IP) advocates
completely dumbfounded, artist and redditor obilex recently released not
one, but eight high-resolution original works of art
on Reddit. The images are free to download and no copyright is claimed.
What’s got the IP supporters really confused is that obilex is still
making money.


Seems like the Grateful Dead worked on a similar model… Let everyone bootleg their music and stuff – All in all, I think they where pretty insanely successful…

On the other hand a lot of cookie-cutter Disney-made artists are more of a commercial product to begin with, and the ‘Art’ isn’t really worth much.

1 Like

Dude consider where the employment is going? Tech and creative jobs. The labour market is being automated and what with A.I., 3D printing and improvements in robotics there goes the service sector as well. The only thing left anyone will be paid for is creative expression.

In general, the artists do get rewarded in an open Intellectual property environment. It is the middlemen that get cut out – And it is the same middlemen that try to protect their territory with regulation and Intellectual property bullying that makes it hard for start ups to get running…

The whole Crypto-revolution is really seated in that – Cutting out the big rent-seeking regulatory protected oligarchies, and returning creativity back to the people.


There was a band, i cant remember now which one, maybe “rage against” they looked at which places where pirating their music the most, decided to do concerts at those places specifically. Every single one was a sell out concert.

The flow of money is different in open source projects, but there is still a flow of money, fight against it and don’t make anything, understand how it works and profit from it by working with it

1 Like

If itunes figured out that 99 cents was a good intuitive number for the price of a song. Lets say further (hypothetically) that research showed people listened to the average purchased song 11 times which roughly which given the cost of a gross second of human attention (globally) say 2.3 cents per minute matched the 99 cent average song price… The problem with this is it shifts the risk to public. Say someone only buys one song and only listens to it once and its a short song and their attention is divide. Maybe they only got a few cents worth of value out of it.

We need systems that move the risk and the cost back onto the supply side and the wealthy where it belongs. That means moving it back on to the supply side. But we have extractive race to the bottom systems. The same people who want to lie you into a purchase you don’t need or want also want to lower wages without end. The wealthy are a luxury and parasitic wealth is a deadly liability.

With creative ideas and art that needs to translate into only paying if you are satisfied and want to encourage more and only what its worth to you. Its only enough to prime the pump but it should be way more for creative people once the censoring gateway making toll roading parasites are out.

Like in many areas, it is change that the establishment fear. Agile individuals will find ways to make money regardless.

Better yet, why don’t we remove the risk altogether? It doesn’t cost a dime to sing a song. It is pretty darn cheap to record. Bandwidth is cheap to transmit. With Maidsafe storage will be nearly free… Bitcoin payments are pretty darn cheap to donate or tip…

The whole wealthy parasites thing tends to fall apart when name names. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world – 99.95 percent self made. Warren Buffet probably 98 percent self made – and they are giving all their money back to the third world. Steve Jobs? Adopted into a middle class family…

It would be a lot better to eliminate risk and create new wealth than it is to try to take from the rich… That is what technology is for – Allowing the makers and innovators to create new value and new business without the need of a parasitical middleman. Our technology is disruptive. It will make a lot of middlemen go the way of AT&T, MCI and Sprint… Those companies didn’t go away because they where particularly evil… The went away simply because they where not needed anymore…

1 Like

I think in recent times we have lost site of the value of content. Large technology companies have helped to create an environment where we all expect most content on the Internet to be free, where only these large intermediaries make vast sums of money, mostly through advertising. One of the things that excites me most about SAFE and one of my biggest hopes is that we will provide a platform for artists, musicians, bloggers and every type of content creator to be fairly and directly paid for the contributions that they make. I think this will also enable the wealth generated via the Internet to be much more fairly distributed.


@jreighley I agree but you name the PR loss leaders, and a lot of what they have is the result of trying to create the cheerleader effect to cover over extractive wealth. Also its delusional to think the majority of the money or any real wealth associated was something they actually created. It wasn’t “earned” income. It was mostly “funny money.”

I wouldn’t leave out local newspapers— They have been financially crippled by the internet – and by and large sucked up by non-local corporate entities that are more in the business of making money than reporting the news.

Cryptocurrencies provide the opportunity to re-build this industry’s business model…

Yes but not a sponsorship business model.

I agree, my catch all was every type of content creator, but given the influence of news organisations (sometimes good/ sometimes bad) I should probably have mentioned them specifically :).

1 Like