Okay people keep asking how content creators can make money and I was just thinking how developers in maidsafe get incentivised for creating apps. Well why not create an app (in this example a deviant art style gallery) for artists. To join the gallery users would pledge a percentage of their farmed safecoins and then artists would be paid based on views and downloads of their art. Previews would be free but if a user clicked on a picture for the larger version or downloaded it or shared it the artist would get paid accordingly. This could also be adapted for a youtube style app other media formats.
Just a thought is that some might not like the idea of contributing to everyone else’s viewing (that community taxation kind of mindset). If you want your percentages to count to you only you run into a cap of how much you can view based on how much safecoin you have saved up in your account. If you contribute to the community there’s no cap.
I love this idea. When I first heard of MaidSafe something similar to this was what I thought would end up drawing the most users.
It brings up a point of confusion I’ve had with the Safe Network, though. I’ve seen it mentioned in several places that app developers will be paid for the amount of usage their apps see. Does this mean that if I use an app on the network that I’m paying for it or is it free to me and the network pays for it? Because that second option sounds revolutionary.
Great idea, but there’s maybe a few problems. Let’s say a developer made this app and content creators start uploading pictures and get paid for it. But what if someone else uploaded the same file, but in a different format?
The original content creator is now not competely getting their money anymore. Besides the format, you can just change the name of the file and it’s a completely unique file (even for the deduplication algorithm I guess). A way a developer could fight this is by including a “NOT THE CREATOR” button. So visitors would just press on that button, the original creator will get a message with a link to the copied content. Because the original creator’s content is on the old internet or as a file on their computer. They can proof that they own the picture. Actually the consequence should be that the files (jpeg, png and gif) get taken offline by the algorithm, because it’s also taking diskspace.
Maybe another approach the developer could take is by default allow the original uploader to exclude the other file formats to be uploaded in the first place.
The big question here is what/who decides that something is ORIGINAL. Because I could change the date on a computer and set the creation date on a earlier date than the original file. Would that mean that i’m the original creator? Even more what if a file was not uploaded to the internet before, how can you proof that you made it? These questions are the reason that I think that a Maidsafe OS should be like Chrome OS. Actually you should be able to make files on the OS with no need to download files anymore. Because you make the files it will also carry your access signature so nobody else can take it down.
To be honest I’m also hoping that with Maidsafe we will finally kill this idiotic format thing. Each file should just be known as MEDIA (audio,video,pdf). It’s just idiot with HTML that you still have to point to a sourcefile with their format name (media/Mybeatifulpicture.bmp). Why not just Mybeatifulpicture and the browser looks for the file with that name? IMAGINE IF NETFLIX COULD RUN ON MAIDSAFE, BUT THEY NO LONGER NEED TO WORRY ABOUT A FORMAT, BECAUSE MAIDSAFE WILL JUST PLAY/DISPLAY EVERY MEDIA. That would save time/space/energy & Safecoins.
Blindsite2k, I’m not sure this solves anything, it just means the gallery’s art is priced in Safecoin and once someone has paid to view it they can copy it and spread it around for free, and even charge for it if they like.
It’s the issue of how to decide if a file s an original or a copy. It’s the ‘problem’ (or ‘magic’, depending on your opinion) of file sharing. No one has solved this problem as yet.
One weird idea I had for this, which I don’t think will work work, but is kind of interesting anyway, is to incentivise a decentralised copyright police, by requiring every file uploaded to the network to be “tagged” with a tiny Safecoin “deposit” paid by the uploader. This could then act as a bounty for participants in the decentralised copyright police. Then if the copyright policeman can prove to someone (not sure who…) that copyright theft is occurring and then the bounty could be released to them and the artist who was the victim. Maybe there could be third party companies consisting of users with some kind of high trust ranking that have powers to judge each copyright theft claim. It’s pretty convoluted lol but I find the idea of tagging files with a small amount of currency interesting, and could be a way to ‘police’ the Interent/Safenetwork in a way that gets rid of the content people don’t want to be kept up there, although that might undermine the whole point. Anyway, I thought it was worth mentioning.
We laugh at this, but in fact why not? I believe there are many folk involved in a product. Look at SAFE right now, this forum is full of contributors who may never see or create a line of code. So it is serious, how do we reward all this effort, is it just these are early birds and will be rewarded due to that (naturally) or …
I think its OK, but also feel we should not accept its OK and keep checking.
Part of the challenge is economic models for starting and growing the network. But what would be the best system for sustenance and reward once the system was totally built out? Is that best system feasible through the growth stages or is it a component that be present and can increasingly take over?
At the final stage it might be that all system generated safe coin would initially accrue to end users based on estimates of the average end user attention contributed to the system. End users, once they were in a position to evaluates something’s contribution would then contribute coin on that basis but in an open pay wall free environment free to use with no obligation. Systems should be calibrated to empower end users above all else. What doesn’t serve end users will cease to exist.
Keep in mind first upload is not the same as original creator. Also keep in mind I was making a suggestion for an app not for changes to the whole network, which i would not support. I do not support copyright.
Yes, percisely. Which is a good thing. Look if an artist DOESN’T want his art being shared he shouldn’t use the internet at all to distribute it. If he doesn’t want his art being downloaded and copied and shared and pirated then the internet is not the medium for distribution. If you uplaod something you should expect it to be distributed freely NOT expect it to remain in your control. It is no longer a physical object and a product. The moment you scan it and upload it you are converting it from a product to a service. So no I don’t see a single thing wrong with a user being able to copy, download and share something he’s already paid for. He shouldn’t have to pay for it in the first place but hey that’s a way to support the artists. The artists should be grateful not bitch their work is so popular it’s getting shared all over the net. No first uploader is not the same as content creator so having “leaks” in the system is a good thing because people will upload files they did not create. Person a can grab a picture their friend drew, scan it and upload it and get credit and paid for it on the network when in fact they didn’t create it. This assumption that first uploader = orignal content drives me crazy. It totally ignores physical reality outside digital space. Or someone can get a copy of a picture and upload it to this gallery and be first uploader without the creator being the wiser. There re lots of galleries out there, lots of pictures. So if someone else uploads my art and is getting money for it I can’t really do anything about it because unless I have a copy of it somewhere I can’t prove I’m the creator. And even the concept of proving it requires some kind of authority to prove it to. And since this is a decentralized system that’s kind of imposisble unless we set up a case file and the community votes on each case which at best would be a lengthy process. Also keep in mind that the taboos against plaguerism are a largely North American concept. In other parts of the world copying other people’s stuff is actualy considered a compliment and encouraged. So this whole discussion could be viewed in a different cultural context.
Frankly I think the idea of “owning” content needs to go. You are creating pretty pictures, videos and whatever. People like what you create and flock to your door and support you. But you don’t own it after you upload it. The concept is kind of ridiculous. You can’t own it. People can download it, modify it, do whatever they like with it. Simply put ownership of publically distributed media is a fantasy. That’s why we’re creating maidsafe so that we have more control of what’s public and what’s private and the degrees between the two. It’s quite possible people will buy viewing and sharing rights and will only be allowed to view and share with a select amount of people according to the maidsafe protocols. Can an orignal uploader share a file with just 1 person and say “You can view this file and download this file but can’t share it with anyone?” If so can you not see the potential there.
Look let me make this clear I don’t believe in copyright nor do I think it matters if all that this gallery does is pay for views. First uploader COULD be a content creator. It could also be a content collector. Both are people that serve viewers and should get paid. Who cares if it’s not orignal content! Have you been on the internet recently man? No one gives a rats ass if any of their pretty pictures are uploaded by the artist. They just want the damn pictures. They don’t care if the youtube they’re watching was created by he uploader. Piracy is actually encouraged and is a good thing. NO ONE CARES! The only people that care about original content are snobbish content creators that insist that because they create something they should control it. Guess what IT’S THE INTERNET! If you want to control your work frame it and keep it off the net. Sell it at a local art gallery not on the internet.
All vieweres really care about is if you’re putting out media regularly, yes some might develop a relationship with a particular artist but if you’re putting out the same style of new pieces of art on a regular basis it’s fairly obvious YOU’RE the artist and not a collector. So people will come and view the art. The point is generating content. And really if someone collects a few of an artists pieces and distributes them elsewhere is that such a bad thing? That’s free advertising. Someone will see that and then look for similar stuff, maybe even find the original artist.
I do not support the concept of artificial scarcity. This whole concept of trying to restrict who can download and share artwork once it’s been uploaded through rules is a form of artificial scarcity. You CAN make however many copies you want. Therefore there is no scarcity. Therefore the art is no longer a product after it’s been digitalized and to treat it as such is to try and create artificial scarcity. It’s like the diamond trade, diamonds are naturally abundant but because a few companies wanted to get rich they bought up all the diomond mines and started metering out diamonds and exorbantant prices. It’s not that diamonds are rare but because someone collected them all and inflated the price they are artificially scare and expensive. Copyright does the same thing for art. It’s not that you can’t just make infinite copies but because someone wants to get rich or doesn’t want to take responsibility for uploading in the first place they want to restrict access to what is normally abundant and meter out control of that resource and prices that would be higher than normal.