Musicians need a SAFE haven

This article says so much of what I’ve been thinking and jotting down in my notepad over the last year. It’s bitter sweet seeing the frustration coming to a head, as it needs to get to a point where people will be more open to change, typically. JAMS and JAMStand aims to solve these problems but there’s a lot of questions remaining. Hopefully others are up for discussions,

Does anyone here think that a UBI would be a sensible solution for creatives?
The creative process is different for everyone but I know in my experience it takes time for my mind to wander and often a decent amount of down time. That may sound lazy but it’s a means to an end and in that end, people enjoy that art the most. Think of how timeless some art is but it’s often not considered how that piece came to be and I bet a majority of the time it’s somewhere in between an intense or novel human experience, boring, and/or daydreaming.

How does a UBI specific currency have and maintain its value? Do you only allow purchase of goods in that currency exclusively and let the market figure out the value?

Having a separate speculative token or a algorithmically adjusted stable token is one way to come at paying a far more competitive streaming payout on a pay per play basis, aside from a possible dedicated UBI.

I can’t wait for companies like Spotify or Apple Music be disrupted. We’ll be a part of that, hopefully a big one.


It would be nice if JAMS would let you know you’re playing the artist’s file. Because we have permanent storage on SAFENetwork, it would be cool for artists to upload their work in a way that lets listeners know they are listening to the original and supporting the artist if you can make play per play work.

In a healthy society and culture creatives should be able to make their way. Division of labor is a good thing. I’ve worked with amazing artists when they are not doing art. It’s a shame that currently they can’t make it with just arts. With the efficiency increases we’ve experienced over the last 100 years they should be able to make it. Yet we have inflation eating the increases in productivity and transferring it to those close to money. This has to end. It’s robbery if people’s time. It’s immoral. The idea we have transgenerational debt is absurd.


So on the nose, really agree.

Excellent point that has been considered. SAFE has many unique features that make most things easier and a couple things just minor bumps in the scheme of things.
SAFE has deduplication for starters, where the first time a file is uploaded, that file is tied to their ID and since it’s encrypted by hashing it’s own chunks, the next time someone uploads that same file they just receive the data map. So when one listens to a song no matter who tries uploading it for the millionth time they are most likely listening to the original. That has a caveat of if the file is slightly different or altered it can circumvent this which is both annoying and helpful.
If a pirate uploads a song before the artist can then if the artist has a better quality version or we simply add something to it then it will be different and they can have the file tied to their ID and wallet. To make up for people possibly or mistakenly choosing a pirate over an artist (which if put right in front of someone I think they would choose to support the artist) we need to present that to the user properly. If an artist is verified through JAMStand then they will show up at the top of search results within JAMS and other results can either show up opaquely or be filtered out. As for artists that are not verified, they wouldn’t get this benefit but the barrier to verification should be low enough where it’s not a show stopper.

No matter what I want to listen to artists concerns and learn and work with them. Innovate with them. I want to make JAMStand a collectively owned app where the PtD rewards are split evenly amongst members so it’s for musicians by musicians with suites of tools to help them inform, promote, engage, as well as govern.

If anyone here knows anything about or knows anyone who knows anything about token economics, starting an online co-operative, governance, and so fourth definitely point the, in this direction as I’d love to toss ideas about and possibly work with them.

Thanks for the response @Knosis!


I like to think most people would not mind paying to support content creators even when you can just as easily find said content on pirate sites, provided the price is not ludicrously inflated by pointless people pretending to add value, receiving a higher % then the person that actually created the content.

Just ask for like 0.5cents per minute of song/video or so, they make more money and the average person has no problem paying 30 cents an hour.


This also eliminates Spotify and Apple’s cut which could go to the artist. Right now we all have to pay these massive companies. Paying the artist directly should lower cost and increase profits for the creators.

We might look a the Arizmendi Coops as a model. The Arizmendi Bakery uses this method. Also The Cheese Board in Berkeley CA. They are worker owned and have been around for years. So it can be done. I think Arizmendi the original Coop has 10 of thousands of members now. All worker owned.

I’m sure it has it’s limitations but it is an interesting model that seems to be working. Has some history behind it.


.5 cents an hour is higher than the generic cost of a second of human attention- think its like .2 cents a second. The “U” in UBI is of course for “universal.” Might not initially extend to everyone on the planet. But another means of creating supply side rent seeking or extraction is an insult to the concept. Also this should be looked at like a commons and commons belong to the public so against fair use and piracy it should only be enough payment to prime the pump. And elsewhere I’ve stated strongly that all ALL risk for the fit with consumer should be on the supplier- none of this someone pays for something they aren’t happy with, without instant satisfactory recourse.

I personally don’t believe there are special bits of heredity or gray matter that generate creative works, no only that there is a very lose association between creative works and personages in general with some notable exceptions. From my perpestive its a strong mentalism with no real identities so no selves or others. I can’t wait for CRISPR to kill sports and hopefully AI, even the narrow stupid obviously not conscious form overtakes human mental efforts and would be just as happy if zombie AI proved 10,000x more creative obviating all need or place for human creatives. Other side effects might not be worth it and don’t want to take the feeling of being able to contribute which lends much generosity from people but oh to be free of the fame seekers and the incessant facination of people who want to pimp their own personalities.

I think you’ve misread my post, 0.5 cents per minute per view payed by the viewer.
I was not talking about UBI but about the fear that pirates would steal content and let people watch it for free, which after rereading the thread is not what it is about, wups.

No, I don’t think I misread but was responding to the thread in general. I was suggesting .5 cents per min is way too high a rate. That’s more more toward all the market will bear gouging logic.
Also pay per view- ick- rather see everything ripped to the public domain with defacto IP reset. Really think it should be up to the end user what and if they pay without any solicitation. Glad piracy, fair use libraries and ad free spotify exists to keep prices down. The spotify model for media also makes sense if its ad free- its revolutionary.

I have a perspective that I think most artists should take to heart: if you’re real and have something for real to actually contribute then it is an utter privilige to have people absorb and use their mind share on work associated with your name. If you’re real you’d do it for free just to make the world better and have purpose. I have in mind the Metalica lead who went all RIAA crazy over the thought that people were stealing his music, wanted violence against them and the most extreme state punishments. I thought what an arrogant foolish ignorant prick. Couldn’t pay me to listen to his stuff. How lucky he was to have a public that cared at all. And notice how he confused inspiration with his ego and how entitled he thought he was not only to it but to wealth from it. Oh no, some poor person might have had access to what he thought of as his music without paying him because maybe they couldn’t pay? Kind of poetic justice that he got utterly pimped by the labels and taken for a ride and manipulated.

Dreaming of more supply side welfare is backwards. At least Spotify gives new artists a platform and more of a level playing field. I like how its destroyed the labels. Labels used to give them 1 penny on the dollar and make them sell their souls on casting couches and other ways for a platform.


Interesting thought. I think it would be a good idea, but doubt successful artists would be willing to support it.

I expect this could practically be done now through collectives / cooperatives if artists were happy to forego the big payday if they become highly popular.

You could have a big collective where artists can join, with certain performance targets to remain on the payroll, which could be low at first but if you don’t contribute, you can’t benefit indefinitely. If an artist’s work is very successful, they’d need to share rewards with the collective to ensure everyone gets an agreed minimum income.

Perhaps many artists would be happy to receive free money when they’re not that successful, but how many would be happy to share with others when they are seeing significant success?

Couldn’t this work now if artists were up for it? I think it’d be great, but as nobody is doing it, I wonder if there’s appetite for it?

One thing I’m sure of is that the current way things are done with the music streaming industry sucks (other than things like bandcamp, which seem pretty good in my opinion).


Interesting, I hadn’t looked at it from that perspective but from a more sterile mined or minted token that just enters circulation to be given value. The approach you mention, though I don’t consider it to be such, is similar to a tax. Even if say 30% of an artists revenue was pooled it could be successful. Although the idea of only a percentage leads me down a bit of a rabbit hole though. I might stew on the idea of percentage and share my thoughts. Overall the idea of a pool as you suggest, is a viable and intriguing approach.


Agreed. Band amp seems to be a musician favorite and a bit under rated on the user end. I should see if they have a dedicated mobile app.

1 Like

It is a bit like a tax, though of course a voluntary one, where different collectives could try out different rates and arrangements. Value does need to come from somewhere if it’s being allocated to those who are below a certain level of productivity for a time, so whether that’s done as a percentage of revenues, or inflating a currency, I guess the effect is similar.

I expect doing it through a specific currency would be much harder to set up and manage, and with less predictable outcomes due to trading / speculating etc. If it could gain sufficient traction to work though, the currency could be interesting as when the supply is inflated to support emerging / struggling artists (if that’s how it’d work), the whole money supply would be diluted, which could be broader than just sharing artists revenues. Definitely worth considering a number of options.

Yeah - I only use it to support artists & get their notifications, then download the files & use Roon, Tidal or something else to listen, as the Bandcamp front end isn’t ideal… but it’s great you can actually download the music, and actually buy stuff from & engage with the artists!


Good ideas and you’ve got my gears grinding again, thanks.

1 Like

SAFE really allows us to be competitive. With SAFE you have basically zero infrastructure costs, built in security, and depending on how you build your app, users pay for their own data (which is fair) and they can get a free service while you still receive PtD rewards. All purchases etc should go direct to the artists. I’m certain that some apps will want you to pay a subscription or take a cut but if we do this right we’ll raise their low bar so high those fat cats will fall flat on their asses.

To me Spotify and the rest are basically piracy already. I have some interesting and provocative analogies to describe their business models.
Look at YouTube in fact. Pull out your phone and YouTube any song or entire album. 9 times out of 10 it’s not the official artist, music doesn’t typically have ad interruptions anyways, and it’s all free to the user at the artists expense and to YouTube’s benefit. That’s even worse than piracy imo.


Lots of points here I agree with, sounds like you’re heading in a good direction @Nigel!

On a basic level I don’t think the streaming model of subscribers paying a monthly fee that is shared out between musicians depending how many times their tracks are played is a particularly bad one for either party - the problem with Spotify is that they have completely subverted this in a number of ways that aren’t widely known about, and have been essentially gaslighting everybody for a long time now.

The idea of an income for just contributing is interesting, and I like it in principle, but I suspect it would be a huge headache to administer and prevent people from taking advantage of. However, if you’re going to ‘verify’ artists (which I also think is a good idea) then you’re going to have to get into the offline world and know people’s identities and who owns the various rights to things anyway, so maybe the two can go hand in hand.

On a more immediate (and technical) level I think a key to making this be much better for everyone than the current situation is that artists could use JAMStand to upload their music, but then easily plug it into Jams or NotJams. This would allow Jams (and NotJams) to focus on the listener experience. This avoids the frustration of Bandcamp of the listener not really being able to have a functioning music player, and the frustration of (eg) spotify where you need to go onto Youtube if you want something interesting and out of print.

I understand @Warren’s frustration with artists moaning, especially ones that are multi-millionaires. However, I strongly disagree that we should be focusing more on consumers, whether it’s in regard to music or anything else. Almost all of us are producers as well as consumers at some point in our lives - producers and consumers are the same people. A happy producer is a happy consumer, and that goes for any industry!


Precisely. JAMStand would be artist facing, geared at verifying and on boarding artists to provide them with a comprehensive set of tools. The music they upload is accessible on JAMS as JAMS is the (mostly) user facing app. I say mostly because it will also allow uploading of music as an “unverified artist”, and public sharing of playlists and stations, which I would like to have be incentivized as well. This helps artists get digitally distributed and early fans can get rewarded for being kind of discovering them.

So that separation should help keep things cleaner. Also to be clear, the pay per play streaming payouts would only be available to Verified Artists for pretty obvious reasons. I think PtP would be the perfect way to fill the gap for unverified artists and curators on the platform.

What does everyone think of once a song is streamed n amount of times the song is then owned by that ID? At that point the user could download for offline play and the artist wouldn’t receive anymore streaming revenue for that song, from that particular ID. Just an idea I’m still uncertain if is starting to cross some line.

1 Like

Maybe new models can work and even improve things. We’re a bit stuck in the idea that once an artist makes something it becomes their exclusive property for the rest of their life plus decades. I’m not sure that’s a good thing.

Maybe the person who discovers the tune languishing somewhere and makes it available on SAFE deserves the credit?

And maybe the credit should be time limited, not almost perpetual anyway.

Whether an artist or a publisher, maybe the reward should be short-lived, making their reward more aligned with the work involved, and acting as an incentive to creativity - having to continue to make new things which are popular in a competitive environment rather than being able to establish a base and then use the power that gives to build more power on power. So everything you create is quickly degrading after its period of popularity - seems more biological so maybe there’s something in that.

Is copyright and the power it creates at the root of the problems we see with the creative industries? Maybe a technology that nullifies that power will avoid the problems while providing different incentives and wider distribution of rewards, without trying to emulate the old system.


Interesting and provocative thought. That linked article touches on this because the CEO of Spotify is basically saying that today you have to work harder and implying that artists that complain about the poor pay are lazy. Which in reality is highly insulting because he’s telling them to work harder for less while they rake in the cash.

IP is a huge discussion and one I’m not sure I’m looking to disrupt. I generally fall in favor of copyright because without it, those with more resources can easily vacuum up all the ideas of those with less to great benefit. At the same time collaboration and open source is highly important. It’s usually better to be subtractive than additive but in this case maybe it’s better to keep copyright but somehow encourage collaboration or letting your rewards go to a good cause? Perhaps the collective? To protect the future and integrity of musicians and a free platform.


Yep, good points. I can’t wait to see what emerges once the network is running and we have a place to experiment.


Agreed its all trickle down with government grants or government money originating as aprime mover and then trickle down to rents at the bottom in a kind of human centipede. And its a system where no one really owns anything but only the rich are comfortable.
But what you guys seem to be talking about is automating the RIAA and the MPAA. Did David and crew do all that hard work just to reinforce supply side trickle down? No! The whole network as an enclosure based pay wall? No one owns music just like no one owns inspiration. The artists are lucky they have audiences. The idea that anything could be at the artists expense
with regard to the public is utter nonsense. Public owns the platform speech is a commons and if so called creatives want to get paid they can take what the public gives them or some middle man pimp. Or we can put it all in a fair use public library for global streaming. Every government should favor that! And short of that not more than needed to prime the pump. Or ‘creatives’ can pander to the wealthy for money but if they do that they don’t have much to offer in the first place. Its attaching the income of people at the bottom these rent seekers are concerned with but that competes with things like good nutrition for kids. This sort of trying to turn SAFE into a complicated lock for elitests rings of the same thing as seeking crypto for tax evasion- it doesn’t work and stupid tax shelters just have people sliding into compromised lives where they can always be prosecuted or black mailed. A flat rate ad and sponsor and spyware free isn’t too bad if it scales on average to the generic ggp adjusted rate for a second (or used duration) of human attention. So like 1.67 cents a min Its not far from $10 a month- oops I was wrong by American standards that might be $130 a month. But they should only pay 1x so that knocks it down by at least 10x. And most of the time its just background noise. So it should be not more $10 a month with no ads and no spyware and no sponsors- not ever.

1 Like