This assumes that people will accept the 2nd hand content.
It assumes that people drop their datamaps to the original content and use the datamap provided by the media network.
It assumes people on SAFE will be using media companies. Already on clearnet their influence has dramatically dropped off when compared to before the internet.
Remember that just because someone republishes a piece of content does not nullify the original content. It does not rewrite the original content.
So if a song artist âfredâ publishes a song, a 4k vid, background content, and then a media company republishes the song, the original content is still there and accessible just as it was before the media company republished it.
Why wouldnât people still go to "fred"s safesite to access his content?
For the same reason that people search for their favorite artist content on YouTube rather than on their personal homepage.
Anyway, this leads away from the initial question, that is: if itâs basically about promoting (and your example is about [self] promotion as well) then why refer to the âproducerâ which the network clearly cannot identify? The idea is great but the proposed technical solution is not about creators but about those who are able to guide traffic towards them. You simply assume that people will naturally flock to the creators. I donât see any empirical proof for that assumption.
Well Iâm not exactly saying that @happybeing I asked someone to âcorrect my bad logic hereâ. Iâm not censoring anyone. Although I will concede that I had a preconceived idea.
In reality my original post was in large part playing devils advocate to understand how the network would âmitigateâ gaming the system.
Which brings me back to my point all I did was challenge and provide a hypothetical so someone could foray into beating my ignorance with a stick. I donât know how this can be equated to âcensorshipâ or reduced down to mudslinging.
I think that much of the content accesses will be not for the final piece, but for finding that final piece.
It is easily possible that linking (in some form or another, e.g. search index, curated lists, etc) to the original piece will end up being much more profitable with PtP than a download/modify/reupload of that same content.
EDIT: I donât have any proof, but itâs an interesting angle to consider.
If weâre getting semantic itâs not about promoter either. Itâd be uploader.
The point people YouTube vs an artist homepage is because the content is there (and invariably not on the artist homepage). When this is officially available there, invariably the artistâs video or something⌠Then that is what people watch (in my experience at least) . And the artist with make some money off of it.
Iâd wager that artist homepages donât have content as itâs difficult for them alone to monetise. (let Google handle that problem and use YouTube) .
So in the end, I think, reasons for going to YouTube are that it is a) free for the user and b) provides a payment method for those that upload content.
This is essentially what PtP/U does on safe, whatever semantically sound name you give it.
So why use YouTube when you can use safe and the artist gets paid direct? No middle man?
This also neatly tackles the promotor dilemma some. As with the YouTube current world example. People can upload pirated content and profit. But if the artist uploads themselves, something invariably higher quality and that is acknowledged as theirs, people use that. (again⌠In my experienceâŚ)
And with caching of popular content etc, the incentive to game the system via piracy / advertising promo of said piratical things should⌠Hopefully⌠Not exist.
In this sense, aggregating Safe sites would play the role of YouTube, getting some coins in the process, but pointing to the original content, for which the artist will get paid.
Yeh. Having excellent taste in music and compiling a list of your favourite ten things this week could be super valuable. There is innately value you there. Why lot get a bit of coin and the artistâs too?
When you link something, you upload content (i.e. your link itself is a content block on the network). Whenever somebody accesses that content, you get paid for it. Just as if you uploaded âreal content.â
A copy/modify/re-upload is:
more work
more data, so more costly (yes, it may get more traffic, however: next point)
riskier, because the same content is already available elsewhere
Itâs a personal account, so by no means normative, but whenever I find something good on YouTube, I immediately go search for the original, because I assume I can find more of the same kind of stuff there. Also, unless done right, the copy is of a lower quality, so I can hope the original would be better.
Considering all of these, I believe that those who link instead of re-upload will have an edge over those who just try to hijack traffic, especially on the long run, as they gain trust and respect from the community.
A media network might republish content, a la Youtube, but then they have the problem of monetizing their content. Youtube does that with advertising, and a legal framework that prevents anyone skimming their content and publishing without the advertising, but on SAFE there is no legal framework to prevent that. So people will naturally go where the quality of the service is the same but there are no annoying ads, which means that the only income will be from the (hijacked) PtP earnings. But since anyone can do that then such earnings will diminish to just above costs (âinterestâ in economic terms). So being such a media network is a bit of a subsistence living, bottom-feeding so to speak, and even then only for the most efficient setup.
Given the above analysis, it would be worth the while of the original producer to put his product on the super-efficient, no ads SAFEtube, and see it as a promotional tool. For actual income he would rely on personally providing services (concerts and other appearances for musicians) or exhibitions of signed product (for graphical artists), or commissioned work.
TL:DR: PtP will keep the machinery going for some interesting services, but they will be like utilities, water and electricity, where little people donât belong and no-one gets rich anyway.
Of course, if they can make money then it will exist. Thatâs not what Iâm trying to say.
I mean the intent of PtP as it stands is that with popular content cached, and not rewarded, the ROI for any advertising / gaming should not be high enough to warrant time/investment. Aka. The intent is that it cannot be games.
The hopefully is because it is to be tested and contingent upon many network factors. But as it stands, that is the aim.
There is nothing to say that such things as gaming the PtP system would be possible either. All we have is conjecture.
But the potential upsides of PtP (going off of the intention of its implementation as I understand it) , in rewarding original uploaders and simplifying content rewardsare are great IMO. And well worth exploring.
As I wrote above, monetizing is done by publishing content, but the content is not the (copied) video, but the LINK to the video, which is MONETIZABLE CONTENT on Safe.
You donât need the ads because you get paid when people look at your site (your links to other peopleâs content.)
EDIT I realize I may have misunderstood your (@bluebirdâs) post, so let this âresponseâ just stand on its own, not as an actual response to your post
And where is the link to be found? Perhaps on a search engine? But as I noted above, other publishers will skim that. Other copies and other links to essentially the same material. Such income through PtP declines to just above costs.
The original producer, by contrast, benefits from all the attention, and the core of what he has to offer is unique: services and signed product.
However, living on ârentâ of IP is finished, with the advent of SAFE.
Indeed, Iâm taking a more nuanced approach. PtP might work to enable useful services such as search engines (as one example of many). It is because of my thinking along those lines that Iâm willing to take a deeper look at 21 and that it might enable IoT.
But some people see PtP as a panacea to their economic dissatisfaction, and that is a fantasy. Artists and anyone else will get paid for producing tangible goods and services (with their own sweat) just like anyone else. No-one gets to lay in a hammock in Bermuda while their bank account fills with their âearningsâ (i.e., economic rent); and the good news is that that includes the elite parasites who rule our world.
Oh, well, I don´t say anything against exploring and probably I am missing a crucial point here, but from my understanding there is no way the network could identify âoriginal uploadersâ. The argument against this appears to be that people wouldn´t go to places where there is copied content and other people make money on the back of the artists (aka Youtube - btw. Youtube didn´t provide a payment method for uploaders until not long ago and was still probably the most popular provider of pirated content). The main point here is, that you assume people in general care for artists when they consume their work and while lacking of some debateable empirical evidence. On the other hand there is empirical evidence that the vast majority consumes without care to the artists. Again, this does not mean everyone acts like this, but I thought we discuss this on a systemic and not individual scale.
The other problem regards the reputation of the network. It is foreseeable that the network will become labled as host of child pornography, terrorist files and pirated content. Combining this with the possibility to make automated, advertisement-free profits subsidized by all users of the network makes things way worse. I know many people don´t care. I personally don´t find the prospect appealing as well.
I prefer the content to be watermarked so users can decide whom to pay and to confirm the uploader individually instead of letting the network decide.
YouTube makes money of advertising, correct? Once you get paid for simply providing content (in this context, content is links to video content) you donât need the ads; in a way, being excellent at what you do (thus popular) alone will make you profitable.
Whoever is excellent can profit more. And more. And more. I tend to believe that the usual dynamics that make outstanding players (e.g. Google) outstandingly huge will be in effect here as well; thereâs no reason to doubt that.
More than that, the original producers may start choosing Safe as the go-to place for publishing. Weâre aiming for world domination, arenât we? (Well, if âwold dominationâ makes any sense in the context of a network that resists any kind of controlâŚ)
What if, in ten or so years, nobody will think twice before going to a major motion picture studioâs Safe site for obtaining their latest release? Yes, the prices will be much lower than that of a BluRay release today, but that only means the prices will have finally re-adjusted to their ânaturalâ level.
Nice dream, but I doubt that. As I wrote a few lines above, some will be just much better than others, and they will for sure be able to use the Safe network for their comfort just as they can use whatever they have now. Some people / companies are just much better at using their opportunities, and thereâs no problem with that.
I doubt network effects would stop working, either. Early comers will have a higher chance to get a bigger slice, and you canât do much against that other than being significantly better, and thus beating them out of the game (think Google v.s. Altavista.)
If weâre aiming at World Dominationâ˘, the Safe network will be âtheâ place where original content by the original authors gets uploaded. Iâm sure there will be ways invented to quickly aggregate such new content, thus make the copiersâ job a lot less profitable.
True, but people like to get stuff a.s.a.p. so I dare predict services that point them to the Source will be among the more popular ones. (Here of course I assume the scenario from above, where Safe is âtheâ place where content gets uploaded by the creators.)
original content owner (âTaylor Swiftâ): uploaded a video
content aggregator (âSafeTubeâ): uploaded a link to the video
the viewer (âDaisyâ)
Daisy wants to watch Taylorâs new video, but she doesnât know where to look for Taylorâs site. Instead, she goes to SafeTube, a popular video aggregator, because she knows they must have it. The moment she does this, SafeTube gets some coins by virtue of their site getting accessed, correct? Daisyâs laptop downloads the SD block that contains the link to Taylorâs new videos (by this, SafeTube gets paid directly for hosting having uploaded the links to Taylorâs videos: an investment) and then the video itself is accessed, so now itâs Taylorâs turn to get paid. Everybodyâs happy, except the neighbors
(Well, if âwold dominationâ makes any sense in the context of a network that resists any kind of controlâŚ)