Purchase/Sell content without third-party/platform involved

This topic may have been discussed already and I just didn´t use the right key words. As far as I understand PUT requests cost Safecoin while GET requests don´t. Without intending to discuss the economics in general I wondered whether it would make sense to allow users charging GET requests individually to sell public content, much like GoUrl.io. I am unsure whether it´s possible to do that on systemic level, I´ll just asume it in the following examples.

Example 1:

I wrote a tutorial and want to share it for some “cents”. I upload it and set the GET request to 1 Safecoin. This encrypts the file with a certain key before cutting it into chunks. Whenever people want to access the file they are requested to send one safecoin to a specific address. When they did the file is encrypted. This of course allows others to put the encrypted file online. However, since it is only a small sum there is not much of an incentive to do that.

Example 2 (I presented the example elsewhere):

I produced an album for 2,000,000 safecoin excluding my individual work. Now I want to sell it for 3,000,000 safecoin. Since my investment was quite big I don´t want to share the work and be dependent on donations. I load the album onto SAFE and let the system encrypt it with 5000 multisigkeys while I set the GET request charge to 400 Safecoin. When the network reaches 5000 GET requests all files are encrypted and turn into public domain. Those who want to pay me afterwards will know what a fair price is (following my defined GET requirements), but can also get it elsewhere for free. Also, those who decide to pay for my work are likely to advertise my content via their social network before the goal is reached, since the money may get lost otherwise.


I like it, and I think it’s possible. I don’t think we need any new encryption layers to require payment for access. The client managers and/or data managers can confirm payment before allowing the GET to go through. Indeed, the data can still be copied and re-distributed for free by anyone who paid, but in practice we see that most people are willing to pay the official source regardless.

I’m not sure what to think of your second example.

You mean they get a the password to decrypt the file?

How do you contact them?
By sending a message to the address they paid from (I don’t know if that’s possible, but I also don’t know any other way)?

i think it is a good idea!

This should be possible. You would allow them to see a preview, say, first 12 lines. If they want more, they’ll have to click a buy button. after that, under the hood, the key to that data is shared with them.

Thanks for your response!

What exactly are you not sure about?

This is a terrible idea. Information goods need to be a buyer’s market, not controlled by the seller trying to impose artificial scarcity like it is now. Not to even mention the amount of extra work required for the network to support this. This is something you can do in an app, but implementing it on the network level is pure madness.


Hi, I like your motivation for thought. IMO, The SAFE Network is designed for[quote=“Artiscience, post:1, topic:5044”]
PUT requests cost Safecoin while GET requests don´t
while it is in your right to create an APP that

Wouldn’t your proposal go against one of the core standards of the SAFE Network? That is, GETS being free and PUTS being charged. SAFE

While I am unsure whether it is against some sort of codex (decentralized codex?) I wonder why this should be a reason not to discuss it. As a content creator I rely on payments. The free culture is aside from hobby people not sustainable. Actually it is a much better description to refer to it as attention cannibalism. I also don’t see why thw network shouldn’t allow to charge Gets. Actually it does, but at a rate that was set up by coders, not by the creatora themselves. I prefer people to decide on their own.

No idea what you are talking about. My proposal has anything to do with the current system. To you it seems a terrible idea that artists charge a price for their work. Nice…

1 Like

It seems the discussion is always in the direction of how the creators can get reimbursed/profit from their creations, which usually ends in trying to find the balance of distribution to the masses and meeting monetary goal that includes paying for the costs of development (Never questioned whether just).

Approaching this discussion from a different direction, shouldn’t there also be a discussion about what it takes to actually “produce an album?” It really should not be just the consumers that benefit from a copyright-less/open-sourced/minimized-middleman world; or the consumers being expected to pay for a system that is entirely controlled by capital? Having been a part of producing a music album from start to finish I had a front row seat into the world of hyper-inflated costs for artists to create their art/music/etc.

I think a lot of the overpriced pieces to the puzzle are done purposely to keep us stuck in this dependency on capital to create. I foresee artists benefiting just as much as the consumers in a future ruled by the actual creators/artists/musicians.

It just seems every step in the process of creation should be considered when assigning monetary responsibility.


Of course it does, because artists often have to struggle to get reimbursed since a lot (not speaking about few but rather the majority) of people prefer not to pay for ideas, but for results only. Artists live on ideas, but ideas can be copied easily even if they are related to artwork. That is an existential problem for everyone who is involved in art. If your job ia selling apples, anyone would wonder if you’d want to get reimbursed,but for content creators (including not only “artists” but also journalists, researcher and many more) often have to struggle to get their work paid.

I am curious why we should have this discussion. I mean, on this forum I met so many people who are all about free markets, but when an artist wants to charge a price (as with free markets: demand and supply) for his content we have to discuss what was spent to carry out the work? What am I getting wrong here? Besides, I really don’t know what experience you had with regard to hyperinflated costs but every artist who doesn’t have a high profile contract at a premium label will assure you that the margins couldn’t be smaller.

The talk about “overpriced” products or product processes really reminds me of centralized market control. I don’t know what you consider overpriced (an example would be helpful for the discussion) but I don’t really see where it applies.

Coming back to my point: yes, if I produced an album for 10$ and want to sell it for 1000000$ its up to me to charge that price. In most cases even professional artists will charge less than they should. People decide whether that’s worth to pay, there is absolutely no reason to discuss that. What we need to discuss is how we can provide artists with solutions that allow them to charge the price that they ask for their work as everyone else.

I am not arguing against you, I totally agree artists should profit from their creations. I guess where I am thinking is how much of my $10 happily spent on an album actually ends up in the artist’s SAFEcoin account versus software/hardware manufacture, recording studio, recording engineer, mastering studio, distributor (store, itunes, spotify, etc)…all of which ultimately funnels (capitalists taking their cut from each puzzle piece) into the pocket of someone who only offers capital and did not create anything.

I think applying true free market to every step in the creation process is the future controlled by creators. As a creator I never spend much time trying to figure out what value to apply to my creations. As a creator I spend all my time creating. Capitalists count on that fact and spend all of their time figuring out how to separate the creators (musician, engineer, programmer, artist) from their value.

I would just love to see more time spent figuring out how to preserve value in ideas/creations and not take the easy way of depending on consumers to pay into a system designed by capitalists to preserve the illusion of capital having value.

OK, I may have mistaken you, which is because this are two entirely different discussions. Artiata areoftwn dependent on a lot of people when they want to make some money. That is not necessarily bad. Management and advertisement ARE important in many or most cases. All we can do is shortening the relation between artist and customer. When I have full access to a market without the need for a third party involved that’s the best solution we can come up with.

The 2nd solution I proposed is an alternative (or rather complementary solution) to the current copyright regulations. The reason why musicians can releaae their album is becauase there ia copyright infringement and jurisdiction to deal with it. With SAFE people can commit copyright infringement on a larger scale without jurisdiction being able to do anything while at the same time the material is highly accessible. Some may fimd thia awesome, but many artists will fear to be even more dependent on donations. This needs to be addressed,particularly to win artists for the network.

Imagine you produce a blockbuster with a budget of 175,000,000 budget. How do you make sure to get your money before people start sharing it for free? Ithink the solution shouldn’t be to produce movies like Waterworld which anyone would like to watch anyway. The solution I proposed (2nd example) would allow creators to sell their product Collectively, transparently and (which to me is crucial) self-determined.

I argue the two can be the same discussion, which coincidentally is a great example of art and science.

IMO there will always be three parties required in creation of content: 1) creator 2) resources needed for creation 3) consumer. To me the application of copyright only hurts creators because they are often the most identifiable entity to a new creation (perceived copyright violator). It seems there is much more promise for the creators (artists, musicians, programmers) who follow the open-sourced/resource-value development path MAIDSAFE is providing.

A proposal most likely to benefit from the SAFE network is one that values resources instead of currency; rewards all 3 parties instead of a centralized “artist” minority at the top (capitalist system) for their participation in this symbiotic economy. One easy way to do it is take current system of each party being dependent on capital (4th party and only one not necessary, but currently the largest profiteer) and instead leverage the power of the SAFE network.

This concept is already being done for software development. Look what it costs to develop and distribute new applications currently and then compare to what it will take to do the same exact thing on the SAFE network (Arguably better) and for a fraction of the cost (Because it only takes capital out of the picture). I’m sure the n99 folks @we_advance already have some great thoughts on the topic.

1 Like

I just want to say it can’t be overstated how much it sucks how only consumers get to benefit off of the current reality of content creation while the content creators still have to jump through the golden-plated flaming hoops put up by the alphabet soup organization of the week.

1 Like

Sorry, maybe I am confused. Why would you need to charge for the GET? I may be wrong but the GET is just to look and/or download. On your SAFEsite if you want to charge for downloads why wouldn’t you just have a shopping cart that contains items that charge SAFEcoin for download? Previews could be available of course. I feel I am lacking some understanding of the point of your proposal. Are you saying a built-in capability of charging for GETS? If so, I can see abuse happening if it is built-in. There are many work-arounds on this on a creator level, password protect a site and require SAFEcoin for access, a shopping cart, etc.

i think it’s like this: the artist draws a picture. it evaluates it for $2000. nobody afford to buy the picture for $2000. since it’s digital it can be copied. if you put a shopping cart, you have to charge it $2000. nobody will buy. if you set the price to $1, then the first person that buys the picture will make it free. thus the artist will earn only $1. the solution is to release the picture once it has reached the money goal. that way the author gets his money he valued his work for in the first place, and also he doesn’t mind if the picture is distributed for free afterwards. basically he speaks of a crowd sale built into the system, without any third party involved (sites). at least in example nr 2, which i like and support.


also, if we want to be truly honest, no more paid gets after the goal is reached (no more cow milking), so the picture must be made free right on the source

[quote=“MrAnderson, post:14, topic:5044”]
To me the application of copyright only hurts creators because they are often the most identifiable entity to a new creation (perceived copyright violator). [/quote]

To me the question is whether you are an artists who has to make his life or feed a family solely based on artwortk. While it really depends on your particular artwork I know any serious artist who would support your opinion. ask ANY cook who creates special dishes whether he would mind to share the recipy on the net. They wouldn’t. Cooks have a long experience of how little people care for paying for the act of creation. Compare it to reverse engineering with a car: reverse engineering with meals is much more complicated, but building is easy. To car producents reverse engineering can be done with very good results, but building is cost intensive. Protecting copyright is sometimes necessary to protect your work. I agree that it shouldn’t be exploited to milk consumers, but mostly it’s the artist who is milked. My 2nd example does not really help in all cases, but for some it is a feasible solution to sell their product without getting ripped off as @bugsbunny elaborated correctly.

Yes, many work arounds, however I wonder why I would need a shopping system if I could also charge the GET request, since downloading = purchasing.

Could you name some. Maybe I don’t see them. I have to admit I don’t understand how the process of a PUT request could look like, so it’s a bit hard to compare, but I guess that at some point the user has to confirm sending SAFEcoin to carry out the process. So what could happen else than people charging fake files? (which they could also do with a shopping system)? On the other hand my 2nd solution provides more security for buyers, because the originator cannot withdraw the file once it is released.

You are right, everything beyond can only be considered as a donation

1 Like