I have had the technical know how to never pay for music again (And I did boycott the major labels for a while) for 15-20 years, but I have happily paid Spotify for their service because of library and ease of use.
Think how little start up costs and operational costs will be for the next “Spotify” when they are running it on SAFE. My advice for artists (@we_advance) is be the first to create the next spotify like service with SAFE and keep the creators in control. I guarantee someone will sooner or later and a non-artist will think a lot less about how the creators are paid.
Many comments on here are foretelling of what the future holds for digital creators. Adapt and overcome or become a blimp in the history books. There are lots of examples where people have an option to get the digital product for free, but millions still happily pay for a live show or a video game without DRM (for example). There is precedent, but we must accept that DRM/copyright/centralized-control of digital creations is going away very soon. I think in the end that will be a good thing for the creators.
After pondering this topic further, it does seem there is no difference between a producer and an APP maker. They seem to have the same risk versus benefit stratification and I guess should not be part of the core, due to the reality that humans will always be smarter than the system and just like any “regulation” the intended goal is often not produced but results in even more unintended consequences. Farmers only should be paid autonomously.
As an APP builder, it is hard for me to accept that I will not be autonomously paid by the network, but having Secure Access For Everyone is more important and will be worth more in the end (Well and much lower start up costs) for me personally.
In my opinion the risks of implementing PtP at the core GREATLY outweigh the potential benefits.
Art & artist create shared culture, place to make and question identities, etc.
Art and artists create much value in world and do not need programmers to decide value or set rules to assign value. If you do that you likely get cat video and gossip magazine. Because you can only create incentive for use (storage, bandwidth).
Network needs application developers, network can adequately make incentive for applications developers? Good!
But network can not do same for artists or art because value () of art is always an agreement between people who share values and depends on how much they already have.
If I have “$6million” Picasso I sell it for most I can get when I need it - $1800 so I do not get kicked out of my house. Someone who can make my wife happy with song I let live with me and pay $100000 when I go IPO, LOL.
Network can compensate developer not artist.
(Also I can find $1.00 in change on street and eat at McDonald’s. New shoes for $4.00 at WalMart. This makes me stupid?)
10% higher upload prices. The network pays the farmers as much as necessary to get the capacity it requires. In the end the network income and outcome must be in equilibrium (or else we couldn’t maintain the 2^32 SafeCoin cap), so the only option is higher upload prices. In practice this will mean that the uploaders of not-so-popular or private content will pay the rewards for the uploaders of popular content.
I think there are a lot of good points raised in opposition of this which is a little bum for me. I like the idea of something to draw in content creators just like the app devs and this in a novel approach. I agree with when you view something to learn more about but do not support (but PtP rewards them) that is frustrating. Perhaps it could be gamed to an exrent but the maidsafe crew know all about preventing such things as shown with the design of this network.
I personally would be content with a donation button and watermarking ability.
The upload cost would only bite you on private data to an extent also because if you’re providing public data for consumption some if not more of your cost to upload would be returned in PtP model. To me the model is saying hey the vaults holding the data of popular content AND the producer of that content will be paid based on popularity! And not inflationarily as popular content is cached and caches don’t get paid! Maybe more here are looking from the perspective of a dev and not a musician?
Wouldn’t that just be more honest? Propaganda is already quantified by views that count as a sort of social capital, its the same with news, even watching with disagreement means you are a supporter, like it or not.
Had not thought of that. Society would not be as advanced in science & medicine if the unpopular views had not been considered (viewed) and had a measure of support.
Have you considered that groups would simply copy the content (changing it so dedup doesn’t occur) and allow “researchers” to view it without supporting ISIS. ISIS gets one views worth only.
Would be good to have more members of the community vote.
Have your say.
@dirvine and the devs are taking into account what the community says and feels about this issue.
Also it has created a fair amount of thought in to how creators/producers can be rewarded and/or paid. Plenty of thought has gone into the pros & cons of various ideas including the original concept.
Economic structures are only valid for scarce things. Since any given digital data can be copied and varied (down to the single bit) endlessly, economics is the wrong model and will simply create perverse incentives as many have already laid out in this thread.
Instead, kickstarting, donations, patronage, etc. are the proper models to use. Since these are elective (rather than protocol-determined), they must not be built into the core codebase.
This principle probably applies to software too, as it is also a form of data. In fact, the built-in dev reward may create an overwhelming incentive to fork MaidSafe & create a FreeSafe, where only truly scarce resources like physical storage & bandwidth require economic activity.
Incidentally, this is part of the secret to Bitcoin’s success: its limited supply is directly tied to real-world scarce resources: the electricity, time, hardware, and labor required for mining.
So let’s put this in perspective. Say you watch a leftists TV news station and then watch a right wing tv station so you get a balanced perspective on whatever issue. Does that mean you SUPPORT either perspective? No. It just means you are trying to get info. But I agree that we already “support” things just by visiting websites and viewing other media. Every time we go on youtube and view videos we’re showing support as these views are recorded in the stats.
I would argue that one has to discount any amount of “support” that is aquired via views/downloads or other consumption to people who do not nessesarily endorse the product but rather are just trying to find out about the product. This is not unique to maidsafe regardless of ptp. It’s all across the web. Any time payment is based on consumption then endorsement cannot truly be seperated from inquiry. The difference is are you there to learn or are you obsessing there every day?
That being the case, would you then say that there needs to be a distinction made by the user regarding their support for the content? And that without this input (a “dumb” system) this system is faulty?
That would require the watermark concept on public data. Is that the evolution of this PtP idea? The way to introduce the human element to the concept of PtP?