So I watched this video: LIFE IS PEOPLE #8 - NICK LAMBERT - Chief Operating Officer at MAIDSAFE @n_9_9 _ building on MAIDS... - YouTube
Questions about this. If I upload a music file into the network, will I be paid for uploading said file or will the vault folks who are farming be paid or both? If both, then I would like to know the process as to how.
You PAY to upload. Standard farming will apply for farmers.
I’m sure you will be able to charge for downloads of your stuff if you desire, but I can’t give you the specs. Perhaps they’d send you a payment and you send them a private share? I think that would be one way, at least. Sure there will be others.
“You PAY to upload. Standard farming will apply for farmers.” Forgive me, I knew that. My question was more about, what incentive do I have to upload? Do I get any revenue from sharing my work with people? I think there’s a way to make this happen as I’m considering a DAC/Dapp around it, but I’m not sure the network sets that up to allow that to happen.
Furthermore an interesting thought occurred to me. How is the price of an upload determined?
It is determined by the network. I couldn’t give you the details on exactly how
Incentives to store? Keep it safe and secure forever. Share it, etc.
I think you’re failing to understand how the internet works. Every time you post anything to the internet, everything from a single character of text to a full sized movie or game file is an upload. If you post on a forum you need to upload, if you what to share your music or art with ANYONE it’s an upload. What incentive do you have to upload your music? Well that depends on you and your business model. If your motive is strictly profit and you create a public share well people are going to download. From a strictly busines point of view that’s free advertising for you but no you aren’t likely to make a lot of profit unless you do something like offer to do something like sell signed and burned cds to people. Honestly if an artist requires me to pay for their music then they better be ******* awesome and offer samples or I’ll just move onto the next one and even then I have no compuction whatsoever copying and uploading their music afterwards. And if I can’t do that I quickly discard them and give them a bad reputation just like anything else that has DRM or that tries to control my experience. In short dude if you’re the music equivilant of Will Wright you aren’t going to get very far with you’re musical equivilant of Spore which was, and is, an awesome game but crashed and burned upon launch (and was pirated all to hell) because it included DRM and could only be installed on 3 computers per perchase. You sell me something then I expect to be in control of that something. End of story. Otherwise it’s not worth paying money for. And moreover why should I pay for music, specifically your music, when I can get plenty of music for free? You think that because you come up with some awesome music I owe you for the privilage of listening to it? No you should be grateful that you have an audience that listens to you because there’s a whole slew of artists out there to listen to. Why should I listen to your music, let alone care enough about you in particular to send you money? What makes you special? Why are you such a good person or such a good artist to be worth my dime?
Trust me when I say that I completely understand your perspective and that there’s no need to get on the offensive. That being said, I’ve questioned it for a long time about whether it was right that somebody put their hard work into their art only to not necessarily gain money from its distribution. I’m thankful for P2P distribution of music in that it has helped destroy the oligopoly that was the record industry. I do think that something should be done to address the problem of copyright infringement but not necessarily through government or even DRM for that matter. While I am guilty of torrenting, and absolutely believe music should be free for dissemination, I do think that there is an area that can be tapped and it revolves around a lot of what this protocol preaches. That being the Pay to Put. If on top of this there was an encryption method to ensure that the person who uploaded it into the network was the sole “owner” of that song, and then there was a charging feature for distribution, but with the promise of a reward for the distribution if said song performed well…I think you’ve just found a way to make torrenting profitable for the artist and have further upended the system.
I’m sorry if I got on the offensive. I’ve just had this long argument with a lot of copyright defenders back and forth over and over again. I think it comes down to this: You’re not selling the song you’re selling a service. Music is no longer product, it never was product. Remember back in the day before we had recorded audio? Before tape decks and records when people actually learned to play instruments and sang songs to one another? No one quibbled over copyright back then. They just learned each others songs and went out and played them. I really think we’re returning to something like that only in a digital format. Downloading, mixing, remixing, creating new content and distributing all on the fly. Asking someone to buy your music per song or per album is outdated. What you should be asking is for them to buy YOU. Set up your own stream and have them pay for access, or for high quality access, to you performing your latest hits and commentary. Music is a SERVICE it is not a PRODUCT. Take requests, write songs for people, do parodies, mention people that inspire your songwriting, do twists in your songs and mention people’s names or places as you’re singing to personalize the performance and in general develop a relationship with your audience. But if it’s just recorded audio? No that should be free. Recorded audio is impersonal and can be copied a million times, it’s valueless. I can take a file and copy it with a click of a button. I’m not paying for artificial scarcity. What you’re proposing is creating artificial scarcity using code and no I don’t support that one bit.
Another option might be just uploading the raw notes and lyrics to your song and letting people download it. Assume people are going to download it. Assume people are going to copy it, remix, create with it, and share it. So give them the source code so to speak. Upload the notes and lyrics then let them download and play the music, help them even, like have your version of the song but show them how to play it and create their own version. Then count how many people download it. And then set up a system that pays artists based on how many times their source documents were downloaded and/or remixes based on those source documents were uploaded. It’s a lot easier to track a musical score or a set of lyrics than a filename. Also people would be less liable to hide if they knew they wouldn’t be penalized for sharing. To be a member of this group you have subscription fees or something. Flat rate in safecoin. Instead of paying $10 for a cd you pay $10 for access to a whole archive of artists and their music. Millions of people sign up. You get a lot of coinage that way and distribute via who gets how many downloads and uploads people get. It’s just a thought.
I completely agree with you when you say that music is a service…but I do think it is also a product. Doesn’t necessitate that a product shouldn’t be free. I think pretty much every idea should be free and I loathe the legal enforcement of “intellectual property”. I agree that recorded audio should be free. I don’t think I would call my solution artificial scarcity. I would like to look at it as the implementation of speculation and profit mechanisms in distributing a file in what was previously a largely voluntary endeavor in p2p systems through assurance of ownership of the created file.
my vision is not so far off from what you describe. It’s so funny that you say it’s a lot easier to track a musical score than a filename. I was thinking the same exact thing 
maybe you should PM me and I can give you my current idea in its rough draft form and we can get a back and forth going?
if you can create scarcity without using threats of violence, then fire away.
As soon as thugs are brought in, you have left the free market though.
No scarcity created. Just incentivization of seeding of certain files. Trust me when I say I’m anti copyright. I do think knowledge should be free.