Complimenting the Granularity of Digital Consumption

That’s the hardest and most critical part and what individuals need to somehow control at source.

Is there even legal recourse i.e can it be proven, which wallet is receiving the benefit.

If there was legal recourse and a take down notice was issued, does the up-loader even have the ability to delete the file themselves or reassign the flow of SAFEcoin.

Without a ‘Dynamic Ownership’ model, my thought is the next best thing is to delete the lower resolution/size file as a superior version is uploaded, so the rightful owner will be rewarded once they upload a better resolution version. This way, at least the network has the best version available.

The potential for DAO’s/ Contracts is big, if all parties to a project agree to compensation in SAFEcoin, before commencement…the potential to have a project pre-funded must be enhanced. Should really cut down on costs also.

‘Dynamic Ownership’ of all file types would be a logical way to assign rights outside of DAO’s/Contracts. The issue I can see is that it could then allow the legal/government system leverage over the system.

One advantage I can see for Audio/Video creators is that resolution, in combination with file size, could be recognized by the network as a trigger to delete the previous best file. Other types of content like digital books would not have the same potential for differentiation as far as I can tell.

It’s a fascinating issue…a native solution would be great…get it right for creators and it becomes a nice showcase for the network.

Unfortunately, I don’t think a system can actually determine that. A resolution change would create a completely unique file. There’s no way for a system to know that its the same file, but better. The ways this would be done, through some sort of image analysis, are more than likely too difficult for an autonomous network.

Hmm, just spitballing, but I wonder if the actors could be used as a beginning point.

So, if a team releases a film, and it becomes wildly successful, most methods can be cheated. If I make a special, unique file that distributes funds, someone can just upload a copy of the movie that diverts funds to them. If you were to slap a QR Code at the end of the video, someone would just rip the video, cut in a new QR Code, and repost. If I said “send money to the production company” or even “send money to the director” a thief could download the movie and just reconstruct the film’s credits with new names.

But, if there was a way to build a web of trust around people, and faces, what if the money went to the cast? It’s impossible to digitally replace the cast (and if it WERE possible, I think we’ve got bigger things to discuss…).

This might be completely off topic…

Yep, probably impossible for @dirvine to crack this one :smile:

Interested how that would work on a trustless network.

With a service and series of works the usefulness for veracity of a first uploader and watermarking could be compounded. Series time stamp verification- its imperfect but gets stronger over time as the issuer issues more work and implies trust in a service more than a particular producer for payment. Links a name to a body of work. There may be a way to get around the watermarking or stamping of copies depending on the quality of search tech. This is almost like a big studio that does a bunch of ads for an upcoming film. When it came time to pay for the ticket, if need be, the payments could be first directed to the studio with studio paying theaters etc. Its like intentionally running through a subset of steps an art historian might to identify an originator of a newly discovered painting of unknown origin and producing useful subset of the evidence/documentation they would as a result of the process.

Trying a person’s name for payment to a body of work in this context seems almost like trying to figure out the meaning of a dream. When depth psychologists are asked they suggest you need a series or three dreams you can draw a line through them to get a trend in terms of themes. Its almost like asking whether a particular person dreamed a particular dream. Even the dreamer might be hard pressed to tell.

If the issuer produced a series of original works over time that were time stamped by a trusted system at very close to the moment they were finished (visualize a series of paintings with clearly visible time date stamps) this might establish a unique system to tie payments to. It could be that the first work in a series is stamped against itself series of stampings prior to introduction. A historical unique signature of sorts. Works too would be identified by their place within the series It would not necessarily be definitive. It might be like a Dunn and Bradstreets assay for establishing credit worthiness for businesses. There may be some ambiguity but the risk is favorable so the money gets lent. If there were a long term problem it would probably be found out and investigated outside the network- such issues could be insured for the producer possibly.

This DAO for verification should be open source and free in the no strings attached sense as it supports everyone, if anyone would pay for the service it would seem logical that the artists pay a nominal amount. This is complementing the granularity of the artists or leveraging that.

But predictably I see this setting up a voluntary open payment system, and don’t see it creating a system to tantalize to drive up prices. I see each person as a service and see them as the one we enter into the relationship with to allow them to fund their future work and largely on the basis of allowing them to reach their potential. Its developmental for the public and the producer. The same analysis that applies to licensing MaidSAFE can be applied to the content of the network. And this excellent explanation:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x2NneTpScb8yL1GUGJot3eo1-CzC-R_iD-Z0qLS6X0Y/edit?pli=1#

I think it was already pointed out that this would only motivate people to be the first to post others’ works on MaidSafe :smile:
If you’re an author who happens to have existing model for distribution of your content that you like, this approach would ensure that you get destroyed faster.

@janitor I know, barely piecemeal. But if no stronger mechanism presents it might be somewhat useful in helping people figure out where to aim payment. Authors might also be helped by aligning with payment registries. Almost sounds a bit like a retail gift registry. Hopefully the scale and exposure could help with people not paying (even when they like the material and could pay) and payment going to the wrong people, so the system would be enough to prime the pump.