PtP original concept required the Pay addresses stored in the meta data which is what “watermarking” is in the context of SAFE.
This is the idea that seems to be concerning many people and if it can be done easily and not having to jump through hoops then many more people would support PtP. And doing it as a API function then any app can use it for tipping too while keeping the pay address anon (some would still want anon tipping of their content)
Then maybe also have the API be able to control the original model of PtP so only what the user approves of gets a chance of the PtP reward attempt. Thus adverts and other undesirable content is not even given the network incentive
While I am growing more and more supportive of a hardcoded tipping address in public data, (and corresponding API) I am still not sure that PtP needs to utilize the network’s resources to provide the reward. Thank you for all of your numerous responses to this topic though.
The issue is with the equivocation of s’support’ in one sense its an ideological support, this, of course isn’t necessary, but the other sense, support as the actual contributing to their economic/social importance is an issue of mere attention.
If we define support as merely needing to get one’s attention then we reduce the definition of getting support to that of screaming like a toddler. It’s easy to get attention of one kind or another the question is what kind of attention does one get, why does one procure it and for what purpose or reason does one use it? If attention = power then attention = power = responsibility.
These are not definitions, its another sense, without ‘supporters’ in this sense the thing wouldn’t exist. For example, there are not a lot of people that approve of terrorism, yet every media that reports of its effects is supporting it in this sense, without fear spreading through the news, there would be no terrorism, it couldn’t exist.
Add the “distributed payment culture” thread to complement horrid granularity thread. Default could be popcorn time plus tips. Stop worrying about suppliers, focus on farmer/end users. Can rip and run with content from current net if need be.
You know that isn’t a bad idea. Imagine you’re watching one of you’re favorite movies and happen to have some extra cash. Would it be so unreasonable to toss the producers a dollar or two? Do that a couple times over several months or years and that would actually be MORE than what one would make in DVD sales or what one would make at the box office. It’s $9 at the theatre. If you donated $2 on average every 3 months not only would that be recovered in a little over a year but you could keep donating and keep supporting the producers. Not saying it should be a $2 minimum just using that as an example. Think of how long peole keep films they own and how much they watch them.
inherently flawed. anyone can copy stuff and re-upload claiming to be the “producer”. really this is “pay the person who best marketed the uuid”. the producer/uploader means nothing. this is “pay the promoter” … so we should be clear on that point… it’s an affiliate program for linking to safe network content. and the rewards will go to people who are already very good at marketing torrent networks
As much as I wish that wasn’t the case because I really want this feature, you are right. I just hope that tipping, micro payments, linking wallets etc is made very easy
Agreed but how is this different than pay the developer? Seems to be a similar gig. A ligit developer would constantly be making commits to github or whatever. A ligit artist would constantly be coming out with revisements and new works of art. But in either case they both suffer from the same issue of someone just copying their work/source code and marketing it.
it is true for things made in the past, BUT NOT FOR THE FUTURE
For all the inventions that will be made in the future, the original creator has first mover advantage to upload them to the network AND REAP ALL THE REWARDS FOREVER, before anyone else knows about it.
(I’m personally waiting to release some new songs and content for when SAFE PtP comes out:)
So this is a very great and sustainable system for the vast majority of songs, documents, etc etc that are going to be made in the future.
But yeah, people can pirate things made in the past. This happens all around the world anyway (growing up in Kenya our family would always buy bootleg DVDs with 10 or so movies on it for a few shillings, in Thailand I would walk down the street and be able to buy any pirated video game I desired for any system, and I have heard this type of thing is huge in Mexico and many other countries around the world too, as their main way of staying current with movies books data etc).
SAFE PtP provides an amazing alternative economy for this data
I worry about this concept. If it can be gamed, it could fatally wound the network.
Moreover, the value question concerns me. Really, the producers need
to set their price and consumers should decide whether it is worth
accessing it. This is how value is derived in a free market, which
should always be our guide.
The above being considered, I don’t think I can support the proposal
in its current form and I would rather a strong core network was
concentrated on.
@whiteoutmashups you have shown me the light. First mover advantage indeed! I think I was blinded by all the doubt surrounding these discussions of ptp.
This seems to be the true crux of the issue with PtP.
The issue I have with your argument here is that the network inherently makes all data free and pirating to be the default, because anyone can copy and post the data publicly and never be censored.
So PtP seems like a great way for people to still be guaranteed a way to make money from this system, where all their works would be free to everyone (once leaked, that is).
What you are arguing for is a 100% PURELY DONATION-based system, where everything is free and the only way people can make money by producing data (songs, research, etc anything) is by people donating to support them. Kind of like the honor-system?
I just think PtP is good because you can be guaranteed to make money if you create popular data.
Idk, but this is definitely the crux of the matter
I’m still not OK with subsidizing pirate data. If you make the network pay people to produce content, you are also making the network pay people to pirate content.
No its a zero marginal cost system. Also as above the future is had on an advance for future works basis.
So no, the broken so-called free market should not be the guide. The collaborative creative green networked commons should be.
In a zero marginal cost system will pay for current works after-the-fact of our open access use if we feel it is worth it (no worries about returns or the end user assuming that risk) exactly what we feel its worth, primarily as an advance on future works. This will likely be micropayment based. It will not subsidize toll roads, enclosure gates or censorship markets (publishing.) We will try to pay the original author based on the identifying stream of past works associated in non sponsored conflict of interest free search. A supplier suggested price in this context will ne an insult. It is worth exactly what it is worth to the end user and no more.
Stuff that doesn’t play by this model will revert to free in a pirate or freeware space.
Actually I think you are missing the point of what he said. The impact of being the first to upload something is not as great as it sounds.
Let’s say you create a nice song and upload it first. Then I take it, change it’s encoding slightly then reupload it, there’s now 2 file with practically the same content. You own the first one and reap the reward from its download and I own the second and reap the reward of the second one. Now the one who generates the most from that content is not necessarly the first uploader but is instead the person who can reach the biggest audience. Hence like @Erik_Aronesty said, it should be called pay the promoter because that’s what it is.
