But first we have to “prove” the SAFE Network is 100% reliable. Companies like Netflix will not risk investing in a new start-up. Trust me, I’ve spoken to Millionaire business men. They only like sure things. Once the Network launches, and it proves to be fast and reliable, people will join quickly.
It’s a free world (or that’s what we’re fighting for at least). I’m not going to encourage you to contact them, as my business plan for We The Artists is a direct competitor with at least iTunes/spotify, but by extension hopefully soon also Netflix. Then again, if Netflix would switch to SAFE, that would convince a lot of people and that is a good thing, also for my business plans :))
I know NetFlix recently hired (or is still looking to fill the position of) a director of decentralised technologies, to explore their possibilities. If this research effort of them misses to notice the existence of MaidSafe, then they should fire this director immediately :)). So my bet is they are probably already aware of our existence.
The crucial objection I would make is that it is impossible to ‘rent movies’ on an open platform. So either they ‘rent movies’ using a closed software version of SAFE technology - not sure the licensing even permits this - or they have to adopt a new model of selling/streaming (which can always be recorded) on an open platform.
"Trust me, I’ve spoken to Millionaire business men"
lol. Now, I trust you.
Considering Netflix is being forced into a new distribution model by Comcast, I would think they would look at their options before they build something from the ground up. Would be pretty cheap to test out their own build of the maidsafe network…
33 million users and flowing safecoins wouldn’t be bad either
I agree, the (hollywood) movie industry is not the best of friends to team up with for an open-source global network. Movies have geographically determined release dates, and people want to rent, not buy, most movies.
At the same time BBC iPlayer is an open-source p2p project, that in production though is closed and centrally controlled. hence they can enforce a replay of only 7 days after airing, and only accessible to IPs geographically bound to UK soil. So in theory a p2p network can be restricted and controlled, but it is orthogonal to the open spirit of the internet and SAFE
Couldn’t you code a private share where the person you were sharing with would have to a) pay a fee in safecoins/bitcoins and b) would only have access to the file for a limited time ? In essence you’d create a rental arrangement. Furthermore you wouldn’t have to worry about users not returning the file since their access to it would be predetrmined. After the time was up the system would simply revoke their access. Of course they might get access from someone ELSE but they wouldn’t get it from YOU.
But this brings up my next point doesn’t the idea of maidsafe kind of make the entire concept of a copyright based media business model obsolete? How would netflix even work on maidsafe? Why would anyone even become a netflix customer with maidsafe around? What do these big companies offer that pirating movies doesn’t?
I think we need to reevaluate how the economy works. This is the information age. Is there a shortage of media: no. Is there a shortage of data: no. There a limit on people with skills, passion, drive, enthusiasm, the right language, and appropriate geographical location. Where is the real market here? Not creations but rather creators. How do you market maidsafe to business? By creating business models that facilitate the “trade” and use of creators. Create apps that allow people to easily exchange ideas, to find one another, to network, to pool their talents, coordinate ideas, plan trips, design and actualize projects, etc etc. If all the creators go to maidsafe and start creating awesome stuff there then any business that DOESN’T soon will because they’ll see competition growing there from all the fruits of the creator’s labour.
Frankly I think companies based on copyright will die off as maidsafe flourishes just like fiat currency will die as bitcoin flourishes. It’s just a matter of time.
The problem with digital (classical ) information is that it can get copied. Yes you could code that access to the share is only for a limited time periode, but during that time period it would be a piece of cake to copy a personal copy to your local drive, or to a private folder on your SAFEspace ;-). So at renting price, you would have unlimited access to the movie, aka buying it.
This is why all internet movie rentals only work on closed systems (Windows, Mac, PS, Xbox, iPhone, etc) with closed software. The only way I can see this resolved is by making a super-cost-effective distribution system (read the SAFE network) to cut costs drastically, so that you can sell the movie at almost renting price.
Basically you’d be paying for your right to watch it, because ‘owning the disc’ has become a meaningless concept.
I agree that the most important value is in the people, the creators, not the creations. But if creators create creations that have no value, then they aren’t very good at creating. You are right that for digital information an economy of scarcity is out-of-date. From that it does not follow that creations are free to create. It might be (almost) free to create a copy of a creation, that does not mean that creating the creation was free.
This is really the essential point of the debate on how we can rethink ‘copyright’ in an age where copies are abundant.
It might not be free to create something but let’s think about that for a minute. Say I want to paint a painting. It costs a amount for the canvas, b amount for the paint, maybe c amount for the other supplies like an easal, smock, or whatever else. and d for the time and creativity to actually create the painting. Let us assume that the artist creates on a regular basis and so has his regular supplies and we are only accounting for things like a, b and d (resupplying, time and creativity). If $restock = a + b and $creation_cost = $restock + d. From there we can create a reasonable substitution formula for how much an artist should be paid per creation based on cost of supplies and a reasonable value of labour over time. Keep in mind this is what it costs to reimburse them to make one thing. Consider it takes sometimes YEARS to write a novel. Are you going to pay an artist the entire cost of his labour for that?
Basically how I see this working is abandoning the quid pro quo system when it comes to the creative arts. I don’t see “selling” art working at all whatsoever, at least not on an individual piece by piece basis like it’s being done now. Now if you want art be it a book, a movie, or a painting you buy it piece by piece. I don’t see that model functioning in the future whatsoever. I don’t see things like movie rentals happening or buying a single movie or seling paintings or even dictating what happens with your art after you’ve uploaded it. That kind of thinking is obsolete.
What I do see happening is subscribing to collections of art and developing relationships with artists and creators of all types. You would pay not for their art but rather the chance to get close to them and get involved with them, you’d be paying for their time because their time is valuable, after all they’re creating all this stuff. I see artists doing 2 main things: creating works and developing and maintaining relationships with their fans. The former is what the fans love and is given away free, the later is what the fans pay for and crave because of he former. Also there would be groups that would have huge archives of media that one could pay to subscribe in order to sort and catalogue through all this data. These databases could donate or pay royalties to the artists that produced content for them. They could also act as additional marketing for the artists.
If you previously sailed against ‘stardom’ I don’t really see why it is now exactly that part you want to monetise. I have many more objections and questions, but this is getting off topic. I will keep your last paragraph in mind, because it contained some interesting suggestions. Unfortunately these discussion seem to have a tendency in many threads to diverge from the original question, strongly.
Do you talk to and interact with Jeri Ryan or Angelina Jolie? Not that I think it really matters. Writers shape the story, actors just play the parts. If one wants to influence the storyline one talks to the writers, maybe the director, not the actors. That’s one of the reasons I find the obsession with stardom so strange.
As for getting off track that’s not such a bad thing. Taking the scenic route is fine. We go round in loops but eventually find our way back.
well, I was actually hinting at the contrast with quantum information that is impossible to copy without destroying the original copy. but I agree, in many ways the SAFE network is more secure than the promise of quantum information links. So let’s call it ‘classical digital’