(i have to admit i didn’t read most of the stuff above … sorry … i just wanted to throw in my thought)
I really like the idea of being rewarded for content!!! I would love to upload my newest 3d-printer-designs and making a couple of coins with it! and if someone makes an advanced version of it - so it shall be at least then there are many working 3d-models online! For now I had a hard time to get really good 3d-Models for some things … there is soo much online, but half of it is unprintable and half of the other half has to be modified to fit my purposes … and i didn’t upload my advanced versions because the only thing i could get out of it is getting sued for copying anything already existing (not on purpose) … sorry for not being super-idealistic here … I’m very looking forward to an open source hardware database inside the safe network! And I’ll upload there every piece of useful 3d-Model I create!
ps: and i think there are more people like me out there … the safe network will probably boost the open source hardware development …
Writing words under quoted sections doesn’t amount to addressing my points if the words don’t make some reasonable, relevant and intelligible point. So I’m sorry, but you still have not addressed my arguments
I’ve read your response several times trying to figure out how to respond to it and I’m giving up because I think this not going to go anywhere.
You aren’t proposing an alternative, or an improvement, presumably because you can’t. Your logic appears simply that this will be exploited, which is already the case. Please correct me if I’m missing your reasons, but I’m finding it hard to figure them out from what you write.
As for your responses to what I argued, again I find it hard to understand what you are saying - some paragraphs are unintelligible to me, and others don’t seem to address the issues quoted, which in any case are only partial and don’t cover all my carefully argued point. Ergo, this discussion appears stalled.
As I said, I also don’t see your arguments for rewarding uploaders. Maybe you list them up again since I appear to be too dumb to understand.
Right…I did it at the very beginning of the discussion.
Whatever, not worth to discuss anymore, I guess, this gets repetitive.
…once. As I said, I doubt he would do that with every album. Users paid also alot because it was a new experiment to them, same as with Panera Bread. Also, how many unpopular bands without cult status could live on that model? Are they just scared and don’t see the potential?
Well I explained how my flatmate robbed me and you reacted with “well you know, you should better look after your stuff…don’t blame the network”.
… okay … so then no rewards … then there won’t be websites filled with adds for pornography providing copyrighted material =) and people probably will sent safecoins to the true creator of this pirated content because they think it is wrong to only let the piracy-website make money
sorry but that not really solves the problem … with rewards for content creators would at least have the chance to benefit and it would cut out all middle-men … (and the true author would be the only one having the content of highest quality … no copy could be better than the original … users will probably go for higher quality)
Right…I did it at the very beginning of the discussion.
Apologies, I see you proposed something in post 55. Your assessment of it…
So it has some good points but didn’t stop piracy. That’s how I would describe pay the producer. They are different features, it would be good to include your proposal - but I think it is an App rather than network core.
I think that you are mostly vying against what you see as: a) an incentive to pirate, and b) people profiting from work they didn’t do.
I don’t like these either. I think the difference between us lies in what we’ve been unable to discuss, which I suggest is the actual degree of impact of the “incentive to pirate”, the importance of finding new models of disintermedation that take advantage of digital sharing with adequate and equitable reward mechanisms, and the actual degree of benefit to creatives of the model proposed.
people profit from work they don’t do from the beginning of humanity, through third-parties (commerce). the shop where we buy food didn’t produce it. the same thing with pirates: they profit from the work they don’t do because they give it to you easier. like a merchant. i do not agree with pirates. i do not agree with the things they do. but also, i do not agree with the creators greed in the land of digital age
I’m not sure if that is truly possible, but I heard that “robust digital watermaking” is about inserting digital information into an audio or video file. Allegedly it can be done in such a way that the watermark can not be removed without significantly degrading the quality and is retained even if we cut the audio or video in pieces.
If such a technology existed then the original creator’s wallet id could be embedded into the work and any pirated copy would end up being of a significantly lower quality.
Drawbacks: doesn’t seem to work for e-books. Some people may view it as undesirable to insert any noise into audio/video.
just a note - the algorithm has to be able to watermark many different data-types … so e.g. 3d-models … if you take the original model, rename it, move it 1mm to the right or turn it 90° anticlockwise 100% of the data has changed without any impact on quality
ps: and inserting noise into data of a 3d model for recognizing copies would obviously break it …
uhm … but i’d like to be able to benefit from creating beautiful 3d/lasercut models of goblets, pen-holders, lamps, stirling engines, kelvin-generators, chairs, tents, spare-parts… too and what is with photography …? useful code …? … candy crush … i’d say it would be not fair to just let the ones with the biggest lobby benefit here … either everybody or nobody
pirated content will be be uploaded if it is rewarded or not.
I be uploading content if you like it or not, and I do not care if I am rewarded or not. If maidsafe decided this is not allowed I go somewhere else, where I can. There is no limit to the near future of options I will have.
There is no point changing the reward system of content providers because there are millions use bit-torrent and will continue.
piratebay open soure there code and anyone could copypaste the website.
people are fools to think maidsafe will be the only answer to everything.
EDIT: I noticed this had been answered already, so apologies if nothing new in my post.
Unfortunately, even if possible then it is altering the file uploaded. That goes against secure data aspect of SAFE.
It is one thing that a person watermarks their file before uploading/releasing it anywhere, because it is their decision and they can verify that their file/work has not been degraded too much or at all.
BUT letting the system do the modifying then the following drawbacks may occur
File usability is degraded because modification did not work well with the contents.
The owner may not wish it to be done
My binary log file of the sensor readings shared publicly is now crap and not worth the producer/creator reward since no one will use it or trust my data any more.
Secure data is not a thing of the past if using PtP with watermarking of the contents
I never said that there won’t be pages with advertisement, actually quite the contrary
So if we can’t stop something (people profiting from the work of others) then supposedly that’s a good reason to create even more incentives to earn money with by uploading the work that one didn’t do.
3… And let’s also make it even more intransparent who receives the payment
Btw. How many donations/payments did piratebay etc. received in Bitcoin?
And what? Once the author released the “high quality” file it can be reuploaded elsewhere with slight changes that don’t affect quality and people make money from it again. Main traffic comes from nodal points, not from originators.
The main argument for rewarding the uploader was that creators COULD THEORETICALLY profit. While to me there is no reason not to believe that the discrepancy between authors and uploaders will be pretty high, the real question is: if we can reward with payments, why should we intransparently reward uploaders. This is particularly relevant because statistically people don’t feel inclined to pay for pirated content a) because the vendor has no obligation to them with regard ro the product and b) because they know that the vendor didn’t work for the good. The market of stolen digital goods only works where the customer are either unaware or naive. People will still download Photoshop from pages that disseminate malware and awful lots of popups, I am not aware of a page where they are requested to pay for it and do so (are you?). While others appear to see it as an advantage that page such as movie4k could run without ads, to me the idea is a clear disadvantage because it makes it even more profitable not to pay the author while farmers are taxed for that behaviour.
The slight difference between commerce and piracy is that there is a contract between me and the shop where I sell my food. I offer a good and the shop offers me infrastructure to sell it (they DO work). We arrange a price and both are ideally happy. If not I go to another shop or the shop buys different food. The comparison works if your shop would steal my goods, but that’s not the case. The shop didn’t produce the food but it bought the food from me. So, yes, a really odd comparison.
Talking about greed, I don’t see where more than 1% of creators are actually greedy. Most artists, even popular ones, cannot even make a living because people use their work but don’t pay for it. It is obvious that in the age of digitalization we need a different model, but that’s not a reason to reward those who upload to make easy money from popular content.
In the end we are having a theoretical discussion. I believe it will rather lead to even more exploitation of people who have to make a living on their (actually used) work, you believe in the merit. I guess we should come back to this thread one year after the launch of SAFE and have the discussion again in the face of reactions of creators, not in the ones we would like to expect.
but the pirates also DO WORK, because they consume time and electricity and materials to spread the digital materials.
you made this statement in an earlier post, regarding prominent musicians. this exclusively depends on the region of the globe in which the artist do their job. you are anytime welcome to my town (i’ll provide food and a place to stay) and you’ll see that prominent musicians make a good living performing live. did i said a good living? i wanted to say a very good living
anyway, i fully support and embrace your idea from the other topic in which the artist give public access to their work once the value of that work has been reached. unfortunately there are more non-artists people on earth than artists
the pirate didn’t steal from you, he bought the product from you. and he make use of the copy function to copy it as well as you make use of that function to duplicate your content (i think by doing that you are a threat to the global economy, by infinitely generating money from a one-time work)
However, you see the difference with regard to a contract between the person who sells grocery to the shop and the shop who sells the grocery to a wide range of customers, do you?
First off, thanks for the invitation which really sounds great (free food, free accomodation and good music ;)) If I get the chance I won´t hesitate to come and meet up. As I said earlier, there are even(!) prominent ones who don´t - this doesn´t mean that prominent artists in general can’t make a living from their work. If you want to make money from music the best way is to become a cover band to play on weddings and village parties. However you couldn´t do that without the songs in first hand, which brings us to the work of pirate (which IS work, I agree here): if anyone pays for the art, the pirate would have to create the art by himself, which cost a lot of money and artistic abilities. It´s a kind of chicken egg situation and the only solution is paying the producer, not the broadcaster metaphorically speaking.
So yes, I believe that charging a fee to a product is the only solution.
In case A which I described in the other thread the product can be copied after the first purchase, much like today and people will maybe offer it for free and try to make money out of it (by advertising and putting malware on your computer) - today that´s a comparatively small business because it is illegal and servers can be shut down. Imagine it was legal, the producer relies on donation OR people who are willing to pay anyway. Particularly for small sums this will still be a good solution to many producers and as many pointed out people will still be willing to pay even thought they don´t need to.
In case B (selling multisig encrypted files) this is imho a good solution if you have high expenses and expect others to copy your content quickly and distribute it before you can cover all your cost. It has been pointed out that this can be done with an app. I still see the merit to carry it out at the most basic level, but I also don´t see why it shouldn´t be done via app - anyway, it´s not needed to automatically reward the uploader (and that´s what I was discussing)
The big advantage I see in relating a file to certain address and asking for payments is that it can contain information about the author and allow users to make direct payments to them. It could even provide them with the information “The creator of this file [ID of the creator] (look up identity and trust) asks you to make a payment of 10 Safecoin to support his*her work. Pay now? Yes - No” - this would allow for quick relational payments without the need of a platform. In this case the user looks up who´s asking for money and then decides to pay or not, while with automated rewards there is any chance for the user to choose where the money is spent (even on his own page a creator may have hosted a file that is deduplicated from an aggregator). The user is our best shot to identify the producer vs. uploader.
… okay … i’m out of this discussion again now … doesn’t make sense as i see it …
i see your point but i very disagree
i don’t understand why you are so extremely focused on music/video … there is so much more out there that would benefit from this watermarking …
…The firefox-browser has google pre-set because google pays huge money for that and mozilla needs money to run … with water-marked content they would get coins just because their browser is awesome
sorry i don’t use photoshop - i like gimp - and it is more than enough for my purposes
(and again we have a project that would benefit from watermarking … so they could invest more time in developing gimp - and it gets better - and so on … =) )
…i’m pro open source and pro being paid for content that matters … and therefore i’m pro watermarking …
i see no reason to believe there might be a discrepancy in any area but music/films/books … i don’t think e.g. popular youtube-channels would be pirated oO … and the 4358902 useful tutorials out there … soo much useful content where people could get a small reward because they really make the world a better place …
at least then there are many working 3d-models online! For now I had a hard time to get really good 3d-Models for some things … there is soo much online, but half of it is unprintable and half of the other half has to be modified to fit my purposes … and i didn’t upload my advanced versions because the only thing i could get out of it is getting sued for copying anything already existing (not on purpose) … sorry for not being super-idealistic here … I’m very looking forward to an open source hardware database inside the safe network! And I’ll upload there every piece of useful 3d-Model I create!
and what is with photography …? useful code …? … candy crush 