Let's feed the artist. The rise of the micro paywall

Features
81

Although allowing free access to content allows the non-uploaders to participate and that in itself is reduces the bar for content providers to store their data on SAFE, especially if a PtP model (perhaps with some form of tipping) is in place.

The masses will migrate over to SAFE if the barrier is not there to hinder their use of SAFE. As SAFE becomes more used then more will create an account and participate further allowing a tipping model to further the income of the content artists. Putting hurdles in the way does not promote an access for everyone model.

Even having to create an account is a big hurdle that most will not jump. Look at forums, they have most of their visitors come from people who are not registered. They view the info and never return. If those forums made people register before viewing then most ignore it, the people just googled something and want the info, they will go elsewhere.

Your model not only requires casual surfers to create an account (and most simply will not), but also to obtain SAFEcoin and spend it. But they likely will install a free addon&client, just like they install a PDF reader. Then when they see SAFE as useful for storing their personal info they might take the effort to create an account. But that comes long after SAFE network is being used more widespread.

82

With PtP I could upload a large photo and spam email several accounts with an html email that automatically loads my large photo generating gets that earn my account Safecoins. The cost to send these small html emails will more than likely be cheaper than the Safecoins I would earn from the views generated by the spam email campaign. This is the problem when the network pays all content equally. It can not tell the difference between spam and quality content. If the network pays users to produce content then users will generate content regardless of quality.

With a micro pay wall, payment is decided by the market and content is paid based on quality not quantity.

1 Like
83

There has been some discussions that PtP can be one of many forms, and one suggested by David was that the pay address is only attached to the first chunk of a file, done during file store so that state is not needed to be recorded as well.

Another is tipping which leaves the GET PtP reward as a small amount to provide at least some reward for popular content that is referenced by mostly users without accounts.

It is a complex question and I have presented some of the problems with requiring payment upfront to see content. The micro payments may be small to 1st world computer literate people, but look from the eyes of children who have to use the one computer the school has on a sat link with limited bandwidth. There are a lot of these schools scattered around the world (Africa, Middle East, Australia rural, China, India, etc) and the communities the schools are in represent a good portion of the world’s population.

If the design for access for everyone is to be maintain then content has to remain free of cost and registration. Unless you want the 1st world model for everything, pay up or forget it.

Anyhow I think I’ve said enough. I pointed out what I saw as a major hurdle for this model and I am sure others have better ideas.

84

Nothing is ever free, someone or something always has to pay for it.

85

@neo Two things:

First, Safe means Safe Access For Everyone, not Safe Access To Everything. With micro-paywalls:
Everyone can still safely access the network.
Everyone can still safely access their own content.
Everyone can still safely sends messages to their friends.
It is still Safe, but some content are not accessible for everyone because the owner of those content doesn’t want to.

Second, I change the proposal and put the fluid/faucet wallet on the ice for now. From now on, every payment needs to be accepted by clicking yes on a popup, what happen next? Huge usability nightmare right? Popup all over the place always asking for money correct? Yes! And it’s precisely why it works even better. Since everytime you load a piece of content that has a paywall you piss off your visitor a little, you only use content with paywall when it’s really worth it, because if you don’t and ask for payment for every tiny little piece of content of your website you’ll end up with no visitors really fast.

Let’s take a forum for example, would the owner of the forum accept to reference comments tied to a paywall? Of course not, because loading a thread would be a pain in the ass for everyone, so the only comments that are referenced are the free ones.

It’s an interesting side effect isn’t it? Using the friction of having to accept a payment to assure that most content remains free.

How about that?

3 Likes
86

You gotta love basic economics :slight_smile:

2 Likes
87

Unless you’re too poor. Too young to buy coin. Not enough bandwidth to farm. One of those in a school with one computer.

Current model is a non-discriminatory system, this proposal changes it into a discriminatory system with access for some and limited access for others and perhaps no access for some. The poor will be most discriminated against.

Look at the network as a blackbox system and this proposal changes into a discriminatory system. You did say you are challenging the current system.

How does the forum owner know? Will he rely on “flags” to be alerted to it.

My forum example was simply to illustrate the reluctance to registering just to access info, let alone some websites also requiring payment part way through loading the page.

Its the friction that ticks readers off. Friction of having to accept to pay, or friction to have to create account, get coin and then (auto) pay.

Anyhow my previous replies have said this already and I feel I am taking up forum space which others could better use, so unless there is something you specifically to answer, I’ll leave my meager thoughts on the hurdles for you & others to pick apart :smile:

88

I agree, hence the modification to my proposal.

No, the information is probably in the datamap so before trying to get all the chunks you already know its price. I’m not too technical here so it’s a guess. If it’s not that it’s gonna be something else but I agree it must be automatic.

Not a problem, it’s been great debating with you.

89

Just wanted to say I hate the idea of a paywall

90

Whereas the network should not discriminate between serving different bits of data, this doesn’t mean a paywall couldn’t be a successful app. (think browser plugin)

91

Once p2p computing is on SAFE, someone spams your website hence the computational power of the network, he should pay for that spam not the owner.

The End.

1 Like
92

why? (not advocating for or against the proposal, just asking why?)

93

Sadly, I don’t have time to reply at length to all your points. However, the above sums up why users would be wise not to over use the feature.

Individuals will access the pros/cons of using a pay wall, just as they do now in the regular net. Most content providers do not take the route, but some others do.

Not building the functionality into the network will not stop pay walls. Indeed, the permissions model will make it easier in some ways. It will just mean that content providers aren’t given the option to request payment.

Moreover, the idea that content should be free is a strange one. There is a cost involved to produce it and while you may not be able to prevent people from copying it, there is still a solid case for keeping it restricted in access.

In short, we don’t demand that online shops give out their products for free, so why should we expect this from content providers? We also don’t expect the network to socialise the cost of shops giving away products, yet many here want to see this for content.

We must separate the role of providing the network and providing content and products which will be available on it. They are different things.

The network is provided by everyone (farmers) and accessible by everyone (consumers). The same is not true for content which has a value high enough to attract payment.

2 Likes
94

That is wrong. Wrong because you can achieve this with GETs paying content creators. (Policing this is a different matter). But it’s very simple for the network to do this.

So as long as our SAFEtube, is a truly SAFE ‘app’ and references the content created by a user, then that user automatically GETs the rewards.

So to say that a) you can’t is wrong. And that the network shouldn’t try, I would say is also wrong. But that one’s, just like… my opinion… man.

A) stands though.

My point being that it seems like you’re looking at this in the Olde Internet way. You upload content to youtube and it resides there, and the onus is on youtube to renumerate users for content.

But that’s not the way with SAFE. (or rather, it shouldn’t be). Sure, someone could make a youtube app that does that. But then someone else, in the opensource fashion, would make a version that’s the same, but instead of the content being owned by the app, it’s owned by the user. And so GET rewards kick in. Ownership stays with the creator. There is not problem, and it’s all handled by the network.

So that’s why I think the network should manage it and that’s why I think you’re wrong, Champ.

@happybeing Yeh, I see that there’s the profit motive there, but I think that’s also old internet thinking. (9gag taking content from reddit, for example). But that’s stealing and there’s no way of policing that on the network level. Only if the content stealer has higher visibility etc would this occur. And this is a problem, but it’s not one for the network in and of itself. As has been noted a bunch of times, the likelihood of users visiting a site that outright steals when the legit alternative is on offer and rewards said CC, is not so high.

The point stands that with SAFE sharing content and owner attribution for rewards is a simple thing which can be achieved by the network and any APP built for a SAFE internet.

3 Likes
95

Another point. As safe is a distributed model, there is no on going hosting cost. There is no server leaching to worry about. Therefore, the business model changes.

A popular article will not cost the publisher in hosting overhead. A curator will not own the content either, unless the creator agrees to it, at which point the curator has to pay the PUT cost, in the hope they can add value to it.

There will likely be less of a business case for using pay walls because of this, but empowering content creators to use it should they wish adds a valuable string to safe net’s bow.

3 Likes
96

So if its so easy why has no one ever done it?

Point to one example.

You can’t because it doesn’t work.

And why dont you elaborate on your quote here fella? You purposely skip over this part even though its like 99% of the whole frigging problem! Lol. Crazy. Just crazy.

What your saying is so ridiculous I can’t even be bothered anymore.

97

Or rather: you can’t, because nobody has implemented a network that gives publishers this capacity yet.

I think @goindeep you are skipping over this issue. I can’t understand your position on this, but would like to.

In what sense do you think this can’t be done? Technically or? Saying “it’s not been done yet” suggests you think it wouldn’t work psychologically or as a business model, but the point @joshuef makes is that SAFE network is a new and different technology, which allows new models that were not previously possible.

1 Like
98

'Cos SAFE isn’t released yet?

You’re aware you’re posting on a forum about a technology which isn’t finished, released and functioning yet? That question could be extended to the whole of SAFE…

So SAFE would be the example you’re looking for, I think.

Aaaand I don’t elaborate on policing content because it’s a different point (and off topic) as to whether it’s technologically possible. Something which you stated isn’t possible (without basis or clarification I might add), but I countered with some facts about SAFE technology and how the network can function.

If you want to read about policing of copied content – a contentious issue for the Internet / world at large as well as SAFE – there’s a thread here: Dealing with copied content

99

The second part obviously.

100

Uhh no mate. Im talking about it in a general sense. Of course the technology can do it, of course I believe that otherwise why would I be here… duhh. Where have you ever seen the concept of what you are discussing work in society on a mass scale? It doesn’t work because it is practically socialism. Look great on paper, put it into a real world model and it falls apart.

You cant manage user-generated content in that way with all of its intricacies.

Art, music, literature, photography, videography its already a super complex mosaic of legal, copyright and financial issues and you think a network can manage all of this?

Have you any idea your dealing with separate legal entities? Laws, Copyright laws, different states and territories I could go on and on.

If it could be done, it would but it cant and so it wont. It would be a world first, no in fact a miracle and it would solve all of the worlds content, art, music, video and literature payment, ownership, copyright and legal problems.

The idea alone that you would even consider such a thing as being possible is beyond me totally and utterly, I am flawed.