I see two problems with the method proposed by dirvine: first, while the chunks are the same for every exact copy or reupload of the original content, a pirate could use another codec or add some noise to a video, and it would end up in totally different chunks. second, since GETs are free, nobody can stop the original uploader to artificially increase the demand for “his” chunks by requesting them again and again. This would just be limited by his bandwidth, and he would be rewarded for a counterproductive activity…
Let´s say, it´s worth to think about it, because it can lead to the exploitation of many creatives. I already mentioned the example elsewhere, but it fits right in:
It´s just one out of many other examples. It´s probably a fair question why SAFE should care for this kind of issues, but we have to realise that once there is an incentive to post viral stuff, people will violate copyright as much as they can. So I would say, yes, it is somewhat business of the network when we can clearly expect these issues and what mechanisms we could think about to protect artists.
I think this has been discussed many times on all kinds of subjects. If someone does something illegal on the network it is not Maidsafe or the community who should prevent this action or do something against it.
You’re actually asking for a central point that decides which ‘request for deletion’ or ‘request for sharing revenue’ should be honored. The network is autonomous and decentralized, if someone makes an app in which it is possible to create a central point, it’s up to the creators of the application.
I don’t think SAFE has the capacity to care. It is a computer program that does math.
Artists can still litigate, but there is not censorship feature in SAFE, lest it would be used for all kinds of things. The state department is claiming property rights over Cody Wilson’s work at defense distributed…
Intelectual property is already dead… Bittorrent killed it. Applications like Popcorn Time are bringing the tools to the people. There are just a few more nails to put into the coffin… Those technologies are not going to be uninvented… Artists need to invent a model that works. Grateful Dead allowed bootlegging of their concerts, and they still made quite a fine career of it… Viral adoration brings fame no matter what the means… You cannot fake a concert, Artists can always make their money in real life and use the digital end to fuel demand.
Suuuper good question, @Luke .
Is it a matter of quantity over quality? (/owenership).
I’m aware that I should (i think I read), be able to charge more SAFE per GET via an app if i wanted to (please correct me if I imagined reading that).
But is it all about data size? (or is that one GET request? … or one request per chunk?)
I also find the 10% of farming as a reward for content producers to be the inverse of what one (heh: I) might hope: I made a thing. Others are just storing that thing. Why should I only get 10% of the reward…?
I’m asking these questions as an author and web developer.
If content size/no. of requests is money making, then it’s the opposite of commonly held wisdom about reducing requests/data size to make for a more efficient internet. (Yes: this is not the olde internet, but the logic stands.) I’d be better rewarded for building an irritating website / over inflating the size of my data than making it useful… (say uploading my book as 400x50MP images instead of text).
If it’s too bloated someone might repost it in reduced size, so you can’t go too crazy on this.
Most non-video content will fit in one block (1MB, IIRC) so if your eBook is 800KB going for a slightly bloated 1.01 MB could be Sales 101, so to speak.
Farmers expenses are real – Hard drives, bandwidth electricity. Artists rewards are Gravy… Once they have recorded a song and digitalized it for transimssion, and paid their PUT fee… There isn’t going to be any ongoing expense…
As @janitor just noted though, if it’s one chunk (for a book), you’re expenses (1mb free) are essentially negligible (that’s the point of SAFE, no? Using space that’s just lying around anyway). So I don’t buy that argument.
10% for making a thing.
90% for sharing some stuff you didn’t even realise you had lying around on the computer/phone you’re using anyway…
I’m saying this because I think an inbuilt content reward is an amazing thing that could bring a lot( lot lot lot ) of people to the network if we get it right…
Is one block/chunk 1 meg (are they the same things?) ? I thought everything was split no matter how large…? I was just thinking the bigger it is: the more chunks: therefore the more GETs…
But what you say makes sense, indeed.
Yes, but if the farmers turn off their machines the whole thing goes kaput.
We are building a network. The network is what is most important. The content will use the network because it is efficient and secure… But the network is FAR more important than the content.
Again. One of the selling points of SAFE is utilising space on your machine at home. That you use anyway. There will be commercial farmers, sure. But leveraging unused space and resources is (I understand), one of the main aims (up there with privacy). So there will be no off if we have normal (non commercial farmer) people on the network.
There is no network without content.
Not really true. Many files may not be shared publicly.
Remember that we are storing at least 4 copies of everything at any given time. Hopefully much of that is duplicate copies so it will equalize out. Non-persistant vaults mean that data is traveling in and out using bandwidth all of the time. Those are things that people may be charged for.
The internet doesn’t pay much for content but people still provide it… If SAFE can deliever it faster, more reliably and with less storage and hosting costs, people will use it whatever the “artist reward” is, or even if there is not a reward…
Right.I still don’t buy these charges are in any way significant for most people giving up a few megs of HDD. 4 chunks or no. It’s all just leftovers, so again. Why the 1/9 split? I don’t see a valid reason for it…
Exactly why if SAFE gets it right it would be a great boon to the service, because there is very little cost. Yes 10% is something. But I don’t see it as being fair compared to most resource sharing (especially imagining a very large network with a lot of large device on it… a few years away perhaps).
Storage and bandwidth are not a problem today. They will become only less costly. Content. Again. Is something worth something. Especially in such a seamless environment where there are no worries paypal etc.
If we get content providers on the network. We get a lot of their followers too.
10% of network fees doesn’t seem justified (imagining OC), and given the abundance of space etc. Farming is passive. Creating is not.
All in all, I think @dirvine is right. It would be best to make it dynamically calculated… (But that is hard)
The network needs to have ample resources as far as bandwidth and storage etc… Whatever portion needs to be allocated to insuring that ought to be first priority.
Paying core developers and key app developers ought to be secondary…
Paying artist and media content providers would be a really good bonus if and as much as the network could afford it, but this is less critical.
I would love for local newspapers and media to be revitalized by SAFE. They have been rather crippled by the internet and the fact that you can’t drop a quarter or two into a internet newspaper machine… I think SAFE can fix this…
Than what are you asking for?
You should add some more value to your reply next time to keep the discussion going.
Heh I would say 10% is way too much - unless there is a way to protect original creator against reproducing its content I see a problem. Say you are good at making videos but suck at marketing which I am good at so you throw your content out there hoping the crowd picks it up, I copy your stuff put my address on it and squeeze all the juices out of it - now sure you can make your address known and recognised plus somekind of timestamp…but it’s way too much hassle imo. I see this pay to producer proposal introducing a lot of bloat and junk to the network - I imagine a copies of the same somewhat popular content hunting for your GETs everywhere where one can post content freely. The question is whether 10% will be enough to pay for pirated PUT as next copy somehow dilutes profit for all parties involved including original creators… Well one thing is certain the bigger the pay the producer cut the bigger is the chance of a content to be pirated
Edit: forgot the solution…
Dapps will take care of it. Dapps were you can set a certain price for you piece of work. That doesn’t solve pirating problem but I atleast this way a pirate pays you first then again I think that it’s easier for an dapp to gain recognition than for individual
money is bad and has nothing to do with freedom, in my opinion. money attracts bad actors of all kind. i don’t want to think of child porn that earns big incomes as being an ‘intelectual property’ of some kind of artist. i stand by my view in which a limit per income and transactions and split of surplus would be better.
anyway it would end, i have trust that the developers will chose the right way to go
Unless something has changed, block/chunk is the same and is currently 1MB. If you post more, then that’s chunked (split in to 1MB chunks).
Each chunk, even if there’s only 1, is replicated several times (which is where the farmer lottery comes in - the block needs to get several non-cached read requests in order for all the replicas to receive at least 1 request. In theory you can get 0 hits for reads if the file is never read after being posted.
I also don´t think a 10% cut or any type of static cut is in any way fair, particularly since it won´t reward creators, but only uploaders. It is obvious what would happen: People copy viral content, slightly change it to duplicate and then hope to generate income. Happened often on Youtube with the slight difference that YT may take videos down if there is copyright infringement. I don´t believe that the YT model is in any way perfect, since YT reacts to flags based on economical relevance and charges a huge cut.
The problem with digital products is that you don´t really charge the work, you charge a small part of the work, hoping that you will receive a nice revenue or at least whatever you paid into it. So if we´re honest selling records is much like crowdfunding, only that you don´t know how much you´ll get and people may spoil your campaign by making your content accessible to everyone before you reached your goal. That´s what actually happened when people taped your song on the radio and it went on steroids when people could do it on the net with basically no loss. To sell a digital product like a material product you´d need to do it via subscription/crowdfund models.
I wonder if this could be done without a thirdparty right on the SAFE network by dynamically charging GETrequests
i.e. you produced an Album for 2,000,000 safecoin excluding your individual work. Now you want to sell it for 3,000,000 safecoin. You load the album onto SAFE and encrypt it with 5000 multisigkeys and charge 400 safecoin for each GETrequest. When the network reaches 5000 GET requests the files are encrypted and turn into public domain. Those who want to pay the creator afterwards will know what a fair price is (following the requirements of the author). Also, those who decide to pay for your work are likely to advertise your content on their social network before reaching the goal, since they lose their money otherwise.
This doesn´t really solve the problem that anyone can take your content and use it without crediting you, but it would at least provide a model that allows content creators to sell their work comparable to material goods without needing a third-party involved while having 100% control of price.
i don’t consider myself an artist, even if i make some media files from time to time. but i’m far from an artist. i definetly know the work implies a lot of work. a lot. not to mention talent. but the problem is that the artist wants to be paid for the work he produced as long as his work is alive. this is a major problem. if you construct a museum, you get payed just one time, not every time a person visits that museum. digital artists tend to always run after the money. i know it is a one shot bullet, then your data gets copied. i always see this kind of problem just like a concert: you make a song, give to the public a part of it, like a demo. then you think of a price for your work. a one time selling of that song. (because you record it only once). after that you wait until x amount of people put down their money so the money raised is now equal with the sum that you wanted. then release the song and never get upset if it’s copied.
this is how i see it. and i may not be a full time artist, but i have the utmost respect for artists and their work, and i dislike piracy as long as the artists understand they cannot milk the cow forever for a one-time work that has to have a price once it’s finished. a value. once the value is reached, then the value it’s gone