I mentioned in a previous post that I wasn’t sure that pay the producer should be an innate part of the SAFE network, but I’ve had a bit of a turnaround in my train of thought and now am convinced it should be there.
One of my main concerns was that if there was any way to game the system at all then it’s really bad news. But in truth I think that even if it’s not an absolutely perfect system, as long as it’s good enough and above a certain threshold then that’s OK. Basically there’s a lot of upside with little downside as I see it but lets just go into that a bit:
So, the upside is that we’re encouraging all the worlds information to be shared on the platform and that means that every one of us will then be able to access that for free. That is cool and how it should be.
Thinking of the network as an organism (as is customary to do round these parts) it is as though it is paying the world to feed it with new knowledge, and that’s just cool, and actually perhaps very important to its overall success. Could be massive for growth too, which could ultimately mean the difference between success (huge adoption) vs. something niche (which is a bit pointless given what could be achieved here).
People will still be able to tip and purchase content too (although perhaps may feel less inclined to do so?) and as long as the creator of the content gets rewarded then I’m down, even if there is a line in the sand drawn from aged content to newly produced stuff (i.e. old stuff could potentially be uploaded by anyone) that’s perhaps just a paradigm we have to accept.
The downside… well if I get creative with thinking about the downside then I could argue that core devs (maybe farmers) might be legally in a weird place if they’re getting paid from being rewarded by a network that is proactively paying for copyrighted content then maybe that’s bad(?), but when I really think about this then network will own itself, so probably not a concern as putting the network in prison might prove a challenge.
Overall I can’t see any real reason why pay the producer would be anything other that a boon for the SAFE network, and as it comes with no inherent risk (even if it’s not perfect) it just makes sense.
Btw, so glad I’m not a politician and I can flip flop on things at whim, and also that my opinion carries no weight so even if I do it doesn’t matter haha
Only a minority realizes that.
But even among them, a majority thinks that it’s okay for some (not so competent) people to be in position of power from which they can control other people.
I agree with your argument. As I said elsewhere the idea to reward uploaders at a arbitrarily set rate (10%) is
a) an incentive for everyone who wants to make money out of thin air to upload viral content done by others and wait for the rewards to roll in
b) does not give creators an appropriate control over the value of their work. They´d always need an additional shopping system to do that even though providing content is a very basic (maybe the most basic) action throughout the network.
It makes a difference to charge GET requests instead of discounting an arbitrary cut of the farmers (which doesn´t make any sense to me since the farmers didn´t do more or less work if an uploader is rewarded)
the offer price may well be higher as intended by the creator - it can also be much lower so the needed price exceeds the 10% reward.
users are not aware of the value since farmers pay for them. They may not care much about where the money goes to, because they neither see nor feel it. On Youtube there is an endless ammount of copied content intended to rip off money from the work others did. Users don´t care about that because THEY don´t pay for it and the “thieves” are paid (as long as Youtube doesn´t find out about copyright infringement). When users are requested to pay, they provably look much closer who receives the money (even if its only a tiny ammount) - they may also decide not to consume or consume the same content elsewhere.
Sorry, very likely someone thought of this or my understanding is too simplistic and in error but just in case. I can store exact copies of the original and view exact copies of the originals I just have to slice and dice in a unique way prior to storage at least once and then make sure I demodulate correctly when viewing. I can also store my sliced pieces in a random number of files of with random amounts of the original content.
Easier just to store a slightly altered form but it gets around the de dup with a lossless exact copy but doesnt store it that way. No big deal I know. Also almost pointless because without a watermark its authenticity is still more in question than not. But because of the encrypted nature of the water mark I can’t simply copy its code as part of my reproduction, implying a phone home in the water mark tied to increments of viewing?
I don’t think this is the right way to go at all. Do you really want the Safe network to be founded on a mass looting of already existing content?
A preferable scenario would be to clone the entire current internet onto the Safe network first and then initiate the 10% payment to content producer. There’s too much data to do that though!
My proposal:
What’s needed are more user types, reputation points and a staged rollout. This also solves the problem of unsavoury content being shared, i.e. this is how the network can police itself.
Users need to be able to define whether they are sharing content or producing it. Sharers earn reputation, producers earn Safecoin. At first when the network launches producing is not an option. The first stage is the sharing process which trains the police force and gets pre-existing content onto the network (lasts e.g. 6 months).
Sharers share content onto the network for free, because they have an eye for great content and they want to earn reputation points (REP). REP give them the power of a police vote to flag stolen content and even potentially take down content (with super-massive majority vote).
Example:
Network launches, with producer option locked and timestamped to open in 6 months.
Sharer uploads some files he considers to be quality content. It gets lots of views, and he earns REP. Many more sharers join the network and the network becomes populated with content and users with REP.
After 6 months producing is unlocked.
A user shares content but falsly claims to be the producer. He earns Safecoin.
Real producer finds out and notifies the REP holder (aka, ‘the REP’). The REP does some checking and marks the file as stolen. The file becomes flagged as stolen and other sharers with REP are able to vote it further down in grades (e.g. from ‘suspect’ to ‘very stolen’). Enough downvotes results in removal or quarantine of the data.
False producers (thieves) are gradually caught and their files removed and pay stopped. Producers should be required to add some real-world identification info, which is only ever revealed if their content is voted to be removed by the REP (hard to do, but possible). This provides an incentive not to be a false producer. I.e. we will pull your pants down if you falsely produce and get found out.
So in summary, don’t pay sharers anything, but they can earn REP points. Delay the abiiity to be a producer until the network is populated with content and users with REP. Have grades of flagging of content with grades of consequences for false producers.
Suggested grades:
a) suspected stolen (yellow flag). Warns users with flag. Number of downvotes required 0.0001% of the REP force at any given time.
b) probably stolen (black outlined flag). Warns users with flag and stops pay. 0.0005%
c) totally bootlegged (solid black flag). Warns users with flag, stops pay, deletes content, pulls pants down. 0.001%
These percentages could be tested and adjusted during the 6 month roll out period.
Realistically, there will hardly ever be enough votes to downvote stolen files into deletion, but they will get flagged, letting users know so they can make an informed decision about whether to download it or to find the producers file. So that’s a benefit. It could also remove some of the worst material that no reasonable person wants to see uploaded anywhere.
There also needs to be a regular REP Shuffle (a changing of the REP), where accounts with REP have their REP removed. REP only lasts a 1 month then it decays. It has to be continually replenished by sharing new quality content. This ensures a distributed REP force that can’t be monopolised or controlled by a rubber hose, or easily manipulated by occasional massive bulk uploading as finding and sharing new quality content is what matters.
The REP need to be able to subscribe to a feed of flagging requests created by users, sorted by tags so they can do the kind of policing they prefer (e.g. investigate stolen content vs cyber bullying vs flagging videos of extreme violence).
The REP are basically part time volunteers and don’t have the power to organise mass censorship. They have no motivation besides anonymously make the network a better place. Sure they could make the odd mistake, but a lot of them have to make the same mistake for it to matter.
A possible problem is the REP could end up flagging content they simply don’t like rather than content that is stolen or genuinely bad. E.g. crappy tabloids or political piece that goes against their personal opinion. So there’s an issue of what the flags mean (stolen, low quality, adult content). In which case different flags should be available, each with a set of grades and consequences.
REP would need to be non-transferable, designed to be hard to sell as possible. Accounts will always be able to be sold but any markets for selling rep can also themselves be flagged and shutdown by the non-corrupt REP. It would culminate in a battle of honest REP vs dishonest, except dishonest REP have no way to cancel out the downvote of honest REP, so there would be a game of cat and mouse. But that’s just like real life, least the bad stuff can be fought against and not given free reign.
The ultimate boon is that REP can (and should) expire, fast, unlike in real life where that power becomes entrenched. So you don’t need to be able to flag the corrupt REP account, because unless they share some quality content their REP will expire very soon anyway. The job is inherently hard work and so is shielded from corruption.
So that’s it. I really think blundering into a theft powered network is going to contaminate the value of the whole thing. Please do find something wrong with my proposal - or use it.
I would like a lot of “community tokens” to be issued… Farmers can specifiy which “community tokens” they would like to support, and the excess farming returns can be used to purchase and burn community tokens of the farmer’s choice (Thus raising the price)
The community tokens can be issued by anybody for anything, and can be used for reputation, Karma, Upvotes etc within various communities…
This scheme would make it so original content providers could be compensated better than pirates, and Medical researchers could be paid more than pornographers etc… Content isn’t one size fits all compensation.
The SAFE network isn’t finalized yet… From some of @dirvine’s earlier comments on other threads, I think a lot of this is still very much under discussion and debate…
I myself think a one-size-fits-all compensation scheme would be a detriment to the network… Remember that the regular internet works just fine without any compensation scheme at all… Cryptocurrencies do allow us to build systems to compensate content – But 90 precent to the farmers and 10 percent to the content provider may or may not be the best answer. I would much rather leave compensation in the hands of some sort of crowd generated intelligence than an arbitrary mathematical formula that was just a guess… Till the network is working it will be impossible to know the exact right formula, but once it is operational it will likely be hard to build a new consensus.
The ‘as it is’: Anyone can upload whatever content they want, all rewards for doing so go to the farmer.
The pay the producer model: Anyone can upload whatever content they want, 90% of rewards go to the farmer, 10% to the first uploader of that content (which in time will turn out to be the creator).
There’s really no moral difference as I see it between these two realities.
I agree it would be nice to have some way we can tie the aged content in particular to the creator, and hopefully over time there would be a way to do this properly, but I don’t think that should stand in the way of pulling the trigger on something which could be hugely beneficial to the network in the short term. Unlike a torrent there is a (probably pretty small) cost to share which is something to at least consider.
Also worth saying that even if we could get the right creator reward %, and validate the right creator by some human powered means, there are some people who might not want their content on the network at all. Do they have the right to say no to having their already publicly available information shared by someone else? Isn’t open access to information a huge piece of the SAFE puzzle?
No its no change to what the farmer gets and the reward the producer/creator is an additional reward the network pays. That is @dirvine’s suggestion for that reward
Considering that the super majority of content will be managed on a higher layer away from the bare metal by two or three apps anyway, one of which being the envitable SAFEbay, I’m in agreement with this. If the network trys to reward people on the network level, then there’s the possibility of the network being gamed into giving money that would have gone to the content creators to SAFEbay, and just thinking about that makes my stomach uneasy.
the “right creator reward” is the reward the creator asks for. The right reward cannot be estimated by anyone else but the creator him*herself and it certainly cannot be done in retrospect.
There is no way to validate the “right creator” without some consensus about intellectual property. Who is the right owner of “Girls just want to have fun”? Cyndi Lauper or Robert Hazard? Maybe both?
If there was a consensus about the “right creator” the person technically needs to agree (as you suggest: they may not like to be on the network), but they have ANY means to stop users from uploading content.
Re: OpenAccess. In my opinion Open Access doesn´t mean “everything has to be available openly” - this, in fact, would contradict the idea of safe content for everyone. Safe content IS restricted content. If I prefer to share my private work only with those who pay for it, that is up to me. If you want to share your private work with everybody it´s up to you.
That´s why I opted in the other thread against rewarding uploaders automatically, because it does not respect the creator in any way - it only differentiates downloaders and uploaders. Not to reward creators is one thing, to reward uploaders something else. By rewarding uploaders the system provides a strong incentive to steal surplus of intellectual property. This will not only piss off regulators but also basically all hard working content creators.
Yep, there are uploaders and downloaders, that basically sums it up.
I would only add that I would disagree that there’s a “surplus” of IP. It’s a complicated topic (one could argue that copying does not take away from the original owner’s ownership), but unfortunately the only way creators can go about it is to prevent digitalization of their work (which is really hard, basically denying oneself the right to work).
It really seems that it’s all about uploaders, not artists, and given this reality content creators should try to adjust how they best can. I just hope to hear fewer patronizing suggestions how tips will be solve everything…
There is not necessarily surplus in any kind of artwork, but there can be surplus and virality is it´s most natural expression. The question is who is rewarded. Currently artists are usually at the end of the chain since money is generated by those who mediate the content. With an automated reward on uploads that´s exactly the same. No reward is better than any reward. People should charge for their content individually.
@bugsbunny Anyone will ever get eternal income, even in today`s world. Also in the case of artists the payment is NOT for creation, but for innovation.
i don’t know what artist means for you, but for me a musician is an artist. what innovation do musicians do? i think they do creations. also considering this example, the song ‘bad’ by michael jackson makes money even today, even if the author is dead. so i want to ask: what is the value of the song ‘bad’, be it creation or inovation?
Composing is innovation. It´s also a creation and that´s maybe where the misunderstanding emerges. In this case you need to differentiate two kinds of creations: Composing an artwork (innovating) and Performing an artwork (producing). In your case the musical score is somewhat the result of innovation, the song performed on stage or on record is the particular product. However, if you´d have enough ressources you could make your own record and sell it to others. Good cover bands sound sometimes better than the original.
Unfortunately in the case of musicians the example doesn´t show the real problem, because the composition (reproduceable) is often strongly related to the artist (non-reproduceable). Michael Jackson fans don´t want to listen to a copy of “Bad” even if it´s better than the original - or differently: “good” is not measured by the music alone, but in close relation to the brand.
This is different in many other cases of intellectual property where the IP is not or much less related to an idol. i.e. It´s a kind of golden rule for chefs not to give their customers the recipe because they won´t return. That´s because the recipe often does not need the profession of the chef to reproduce, but the profession was needed to invent the dish. Hopefully you see the conflict. A freshman can produce the same meal with the right recipe, but the recipe couldn´t be there without the chef so the surplus that he makes is (also) the payment for the work he did in advance, not in the moment when he produces the meal.
Paying for innovation (that is also education and development) is crucial and imho shouldn´t be considered as a mere “tip”, but I agree with you that current licensing models are questionable.
That’s one my big grip with this system, it makes content creator compete with aggregators, Everyone will flock to the biggest aggregator following the path of least resistance. All the aggregator needs is to reupload the data with his wallet id and the creator will not see a dime.
I think this is where we maybe don’t quite agree. Lets say you sell me and every one else on the planet your content, do you have eternal control over us? If we disobey your wishes should we be punished? Did we not buy it from you and therefore own it? Maybe you perhaps agree to rent it to us under a contract which means we can only do certain things with it but I reckon that goes against the reality of the situation and for me that is content is either private or public. There is no third way here. That might be unfortunate for those people who have been making money thus far by selling already public information but there’s been a paradigm shift brought about by the technology and it’ll take us all a while to catch up mentally with this I think.
Before technology enabled music to be trapped on a record, and thus re-sold, I don’t think people would go around complaining that they had to rely on performing their song. Same for books - story tellers would have had to perform for the money I’d have thought. The window of trapping and selling information in this way opened up for the briefest of times (if you think about human history) and it’s now closed again. There is no point feeling happy or sad about this - it just is.
Given that it is now essentially impossible to stop people accessing your public digital content for free, even if you sell something I’d see that as a tip in some ways anyway, especially as it’s just getting easier and easier to access every shred of publicly shared content. Getting a tip from someone who read your book or listened to your song is only a good thing right? Am I missing something here?
