Is there a way to reward people for popular content?

[Seneca]

@janitor

Perhaps, but:1) the current prices aren’t micro prices. On sites where you’d like to micro-pay you mostly cannot, while on sites where people can pay, many claim the prices are bloated. I doubt the lack of cheap and convenient micro payments is why people don’t pay where they can,2) $0 is even more convenient than $0.2.

1. I’m not talking about prices but about donations.
2. True, but the entire idea about donations is that you want to give something in the first place. My argument is that on the current internet many of those who are willing to donate do not due to a lack of a properly integrated payment system.

@janitor

There are browser apps that enable auto micro-donations based purely on time spent on each site (when auto-pay is enabled). That way you don’t have to click, which is neat - assuming you set the max value per site per month and don’t spend time on sites you don’t want to reward. I didn’t check how much is donated that way, I think the sums must be pathetic.

Never used them, and never heard anyone talk about them before either. Which is exactly my point, there’s no standard. How many websites support them anyway? Everyone on SAFE will be aware of SafeCoin though.

[Blindsite2k]

@janitor

Are you waiving your right to sue me if I publish you private medical and financial info? Please let us know. Blindsite2k feel free to join.

You’re talking about two different issues here. In the case of the music/moves you’re proposing that by copying and distributing something that one is “stealing” wealth. In the second instance you are discussing copying personal information and violating a trust of privacy. I would put forward that if that is the case and if the artist felt that strongly about it then as soon as the artist’s publisher sold content to customers that pirated the content the artist should have a clause in their contract to void the contract with said publisher because obviously the publisher cannot trust it’s clients and so security of the artwork is breached. It’s like keeping any secret: You tell your friend and they tell their friend and their friend blabs, well that reflects badly on the first person you told.

Of course this would severely limit the scope of marketing your artwork but hey at least it wouldn’t be pirated. Basically my attitude is this: If you choose to upload your art or mass market you shouldn’t complain about being pirated. If you really care about maintaining your privacy then don’t mass market, or at least radically change your business model. But seriously I don’t see a way of sharing your work, your “secret” and making it big and not being pirated. If you tell everyone your secret eventually they’ll be telling each other the story as well and it’ll no longer be “your” secret to tell. That’s why you keep your personal information PRIVATE.

@janitor

Perhaps, but:1) the current prices aren’t micro prices. On sites where you’d like to micro-pay you mostly cannot, while on sites where people can pay, many claim the prices are bloated. I doubt the lack of cheap and convenient micro payments is why people don’t pay where they can,2) $0 is even more convenient than $0.2.

Since SafeCoin is part of the SAFE core, I could mindlessly click on the micro-donation button as if I’m clicking a Like-button and resume my activities without interruption. Micro-donating as an impulsive action, in the heat of the moment, that’s what I’d like to have!

There are browser apps that enable auto micro-donations based purely on time spent on each site (when auto-pay is enabled). That way you don’t have to click, which is neat - assuming you set the max value per site per month and don’t spend time on sites you don’t want to reward. I didn’t check how much is donated that way, I think the sums must be pathetic.

If you’re talking quid pro quo yeah but if you’re talking a gift or tip that’s a different scenario entirely. Take how tips are given on second life. If you REQUIRED me to pay for something it’s a long thought out process and I weigh the cost/benefits. If you just have a tip jar there or whatever and I like your stuff I might actually tip you MORE than I would if you had set a given price, especially if I have a lot of spare money on me at the time. Like one day on SL I went to a strip club and tipped one of the strippers $L1,000 then later that same day swung by the Callahan sim and dropped another $L100 in the cigar box (tip jar). However if I go to buy a new avatar which would cost about $L700 or $L1000 I’m carefully considering and may not get anything at all.

The problem I see isn’t giving stuff away and relying on donations. The problem I see is that in order incite donations you need to develop a relationship with the people you are hoping to get donations from. Very few people are going to donate to an empty room even if there is great stuff there. Their emotional connection, and therefore the donation, is not with the stuff, their emotional connection is with the creator of the stuff.

@janitor

There are browser apps that enable auto micro-donations based purely on time spent on each site (when auto-pay is enabled). That way you don’t have to click, which is neat - assuming you set the max value per site per month and don’t spend time on sites you don’t want to reward. I didn’t check how much is donated that way, I think the sums must be pathetic.

I don’t think I’d want to go this far as I read a few sites for information I absolutely do not want to reward.

Edit:
Knowledge and information is like fire. You can keep it small on the end of the wick of a candle (private and encrypted) or you can share in in your fireplace but if your house catches on fire or if you start a public bonfire and someone takes a stick and carries off some of the fire it’s no longer yours or under your control. Likewise if you share your fire with your friend because they’re cold and in the dark you are trusting them to use it responsibly HOWEVER they still have control of whether they actually do and you cannot retroactively take your fire back if they decide to go on an arson fest. You have control of your knowledge up to the point you hit the upload button, that is you have control of your fire up until the point you hand it to someone else, then it’s a matter of trust. Now if you want to discuss breach of trust that’s a completely different topic however they are not “stealing wealth” or denying you of your fire/information.

[janitor]

@Seneca

Never used them, and never heard anyone talk about them before either.

That’s how voluntarism works. If you don’t want to reward someone, why would you go out of your way to learn about it?
I don’t blame you, I’m just pointing out that if someone doesn’t want to donate, he won’t.

We don’t need a standard in order to reward those who serve us by producing valuable content. Since bitcoin became popular I’ve been using it for donations despite a lack of a generally accepted standard.

Sites like Syndicoin (https://www.syndicoin.co/) and others can work unchanged on the Web and MaidSafe network.

@Seneca

Which is exactly my point, there’s no standard.

There are many standards, here’s one from the 90’s
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-Micropayment-Markup-19990609/
Everyone had 15 years to learn about it and yet almost noone knows about it, supposedly because it’s not convenient to actually make a payment. Right.

@Blindsite2k

In the case of the music/moves you’re proposing that by copying and distributing something that one is “stealing” wealth. In the second instance you are discussing copying personal information and violating a trust of privacy.

If I copy details of your medical procedure from your doctor’s server, what trust of privacy am I violating? I don’t care whose data are in there, I just want to profit by selling it - maybe in a gentlemanly way of selling aggregate, anonymous stats of stuff I fetch from different hospitals. I have no written or other contract with either you or the hospital.

On the other hand, if online content is DRM-protected and/or if you agreed to not redistribute it (by clicking on “I agree” in EULA), that in fact is a contract so I don’t see why your non-existent contract somehow outweighs rights of content producer with a factual contract. There may be better arguments in favor of “IP doesn’t exist”, but you have not stated them.

@Blindsite2k

I don’t think I’d want to go this far as I read a few sites for information I absolutely do not want to reward.

But you mentioned that some stuff that you downloaded could be worth around $0.20 and you still didn’t reward those artists (based on my understanding of your earlier comment).

In any case, I am not on either side of this argument, I am merely pointing out inconsistencies in arguments I’ve seen so far that claim that SAFE will be somehow different, that it removes barriers to payments in ways that didn’t exist before and that there’s a difference between data (that in one case it’s not a properly, and in another that it is a property).

In my view the best part about MaidSafe is that it prevents the possibility of blocking willing donors to consume content they like and anonymously reward content producers.

[Seneca]

@janitor

I’m just pointing out that if someone doesn’t want to donate, he won’t.

Obviously. I’m pointing out that there are people who want to donate but currently won’t.

@janitor

We don’t need a standard in order to reward those who serve us by producing valuable content. Since bitcoin became popular I’ve been using it for donations despite a lack of a generally accepted standard.

It’s not a necessity, but it does make it easier and more commonplace.

@janitor

There are many standards

If there are many standards there is no standard.

@janitor

I am merely pointing out inconsistencies in arguments I’ve seen so far that claim that SAFE will be somehow different, that it removes barriers to payments in ways that didn’t exist before

There has never been anything like SAFE with SafeCoin and all that comes with it before. But okay, if you don’t see it, that’s fine.

[Blindsite2k]

@janitor

If I copy details of your medical procedure from your doctor’s server, what trust of privacy am I violating? I don’t care whose data are in there, I just want to profit by selling it - maybe in a gentlemanly way of selling aggregate, anonymous stats of stuff I fetch from different hospitals. I have no written or other contract with either you or the hospital.

Who’s trust have you violated? Who owns the server? That’s one trust. Who’s name is on the medical report? That’s another trust. And don’t be obtuse with the contracts. A trust is a trust. The fact you’re reading the info at all is an invasion of privacy. The fact you’re distributing, in whole or in part, is another. Yes you could argue that it would simply anonymous data but you still obtained it by violating one or more trusts. You don’t need a contract to do that. This is just common sense.

@janitor

On the other hand, if online content is DRM-protected and/or if you agreed to not redistribute it (by clicking on “I agree” in EULA), that in fact is a contract so I don’t see why your non-existent contract somehow outweighs rights of content producer with a factual contract. There may be better arguments in favor of “IP doesn’t exist”, but you have not stated them.

A law that is not enforceable has no meaning. Moreover it could be argued that a law that two people do not agree with also has no meaning. I find online contracts utterly hilarious in that they are nothing but a checkmark and a submit button. A real contract is fluid, you can cross out terms you don’t like and add new ones. A real contract is a piece of paper you can edit, or at least an editable document of some kind. You expect a one sided checkmark document to be respected? More to the point you expect such a law to be respected when it has no teeth? You can decrypt DRM easily. And break the EULA in a heartbeat. It means nothing. Is this a violation of a trust? Oh most certainly. Is it theft? No because the original copy is still on the producer’s hard drive.

Are you actually suggesting that IP exists because I am bound to respect a “contract” that I could not participate in the creation of and is therefore not an agreement but rather a declaration and whose terms cannot be enforced? A contract whose validity I do not believe in in the first place and am only checking off so that I can access said software? Are you that naive?

Again what did I tell you about knowledge and fire?

@janitor

In my view the best part about MaidSafe is that it prevents the possibility of blocking willing donors to consume content they like and anonymously reward content producers.

Well this we can agree on.

[janitor]

@Seneca

There has never been anything like SAFE with SafeCoin and all that comes with it before. But okay, if you don’t see it, that’s fine.

I pointed out several times that my arguments aren’t MaidSafe-specific and I clearly said that MaidSafe provides some unique features that are extremely valuable to both creators and consumers of online content.
You claim that due to the single way to pay for content on the SAFE network authors will be able to earn more than on the Web, which IMO is not well founded except in those cases that I mentioned (for authors who can’t post their content on the Web and/or can’t get rewarded for it on the Web due to censorship and various laws and regulations).

You’re trying to turn this into a for vs. against MaidSafe discussion which it is most decidedly not.

[Al_Kafir]

@janitor

If either side disagrees, it’s not a fair deal, so your logic doesn’t make sense

@janitor

Either you think there is intellectual property (in which case the above is theft), or you don’t

Let’s say he doesn’t…

@janitor

(in which case the price is merely a suggestion

he was willing to pay $0.20, not suggesting it. To suggest it would imply an offer for something regarded as Property, and he doesn’t recognise “intellectual” property as property…

@janitor

so your logic doesn’t make sense

@janitor

according to your opinion has no value

He established a fair value (to him) of $0.20 and was willing to pay this.