Is MaidSafe then end for copyright laws?


I am of the understanding that one can decide to either keep their content/data private, or share publicly (without risk of ‘take-downs’).

Does this open up the ability for crawlers (an incentivised individuals) to suck up all video/music/books and share them? Is copyright now dead?


I would think not, anyway I think that what I see is we need new ways of rewarding content providers in this digital age. Prohibition of copying is now dead IMO, but has been anyway. The answer will be a new mechanism and we may have such a thing in SAFE if some of the ideas pan out, like embedded wallets in movies, we are the artists (project) and more.

A fair way will be the answer in the SAFE network and beyond. Maybe exploding the myth of forced prohibition of digital information is a good thing.


It is an amazing feature that an artist can disseminate one’s creation to an entire audience all at once.
I imagine that if embedding wallets and creating an entry fee to see a film, or artwork that the viewer must pay; considering how many impulsively will pay to see, a viral comment such as: “have you seen ‘this movie’ its a must see” from a friend; in order to keep up with the times one should pay the fee and watch the movie.

Additionally even something such as viewing a piece of artwork could be previewed for 2 seconds, and to view for sometime will require the whole of the fee. Even downloaded and reloaded content will retain that timer so for example if someone was to violate someone’s copyright by posting an image on a webpage which contains an embedded timer and wallet information:

  1. Person will visit the webpage to see the content.
  2. The ‘stolen’ image will appear
  3. The ‘stolen’ image will be paid for by the viewer, otherwise it will disappear within 2 seconds
  4. The webpage loses rank, or the creator of the content will get paid and the webpage will succeed.


@dallyshalla. I think we should prioritize open access over people getting paid. Way way way before it. Lets say I pay to see something because I was lured in. I dont like it. Do I get my money back? These payment mechanisms are a waste of time and effort and they transition a status quo which isn’t working. Better if I pay to encourage future works without strings. I want the 100 x revenue reduction for backwards content agrregators and sponsor whores like Fox. I want them out of business in an exemplary way. Id pay to see it happen. We want level playing field and dont want profit as a gimick or something fully parasitic. Some of us want to cut Wall st. out as its not spreading equity and opportunity its shareholders and their irrational influence are like credit cards that cant be paid off. We need models that eliminate any kind of rent seeking and price manipulation. The virtual is an ideal and logical place to start.


Media Content has been talked about a lot over here.


@Warren Please see this post:

I agree fully, What causes wall street style nonsense is that there is excessive hoarding taking place called AUM - assets under management. The more a wall street firm hoards the more value it is perceived. In a fully recycling economy which is somewhat how I perceive that the SAFE Network exists to be the currency is valuable, and constantly changing hands - at least there should be the option to offer content for the artists’ wallets.

Hoarding takes place for many reasons, and especially the perception that later it will not be possible or too difficult to gain monetary resources. As those monetary resources are more frivolous to acquire they will also be frivolously spent. The expansion mechanism is amazing - where 4.3 billion coins will arrive over time to facilitate for the increased demand, preventing a noticeable disruption to commerce, and life.



I’d also like to try to offer a pretty easy explanation, and anyone please correct me if I’m wrong. But:

The SAFE Network is such a great leap forward, that this very question will come up very frequently throughout the transitioning.

It definitely seems like your situation could happen, and your question is very valid, but it isn’t a BAD thing, because the content creators (authors, directors, etc.) would all still get paid, just not in the old-fashioned (current) way we are doing it today.

They would recieve SafeCoin, based on how many people are CURRENTLY USING (watching, reading, using the program, etc.) whatever they made (book, movie, email service, etc.) in REAL-TIME.

Like, for every second that each person watches their video, the video-makers’ wallets will be turned to the ON position, and start “farming” SafeCoin for them (MAKING MONEYYY $$ :))

That’s my understanding.

It’s just evolution,

It’s simply BETTER :)…

and none of us can wait!


I used to think that exact arrangement in some format would be the best we could do. But I now think there should be something where end users can voluntarily spend beyond simply what their attention is focused on. My reasoning is that we will get an attention for attention’s sake set up again. I might be possible to accrue almost all coin initially to end so that way the money starts voluntarily with maximum use of the attention and flows in the right direction from the start. To me conflict of interest is any place where the end users attention or money is turned or used against and this includes any kind of sponsorship arrangement. The former pure attentional system would not rule out sponsor style attention traps. Having everything paid out on a voluntary single click end user micro payment for future works would not necessarily do so either but it would short circuit conflict of interest sponsor style arrangements.

Right now Lawrence Lessig is trying to create a super pac to get campaign finance reform finally done in the states. I don’t think anything short of making sponsored media or an enforced felony crime with huge enforced civil penalties would work. The other thing that could work is an open source approach to info as above. He is trying to combat an info enclosure movement but he needs tools that go beyond one nations laws or even a group of their laws. We need systems that hand total control over end user interfaces (and by extension) to end users and we need systems that only take money and influence from plausibly legitimate end users.


Good question. If not the end, copyright laws need to change and update. The Internet is the cause of change.


I foresee the maidsafe version Kim Dotcom making a fortune from uploading all existing internet data/media. Going forward the ‘first uploader’ of content (so presumably the rights holder) will be rewarded correctly, but every piece of ‘copyrighted’ content which exists at launch is going to be earning money for someone else.

Dealing with copied content