What do you expect in the infancy of the network? Ways to "quickly aggregate such new content, thus make the copiers' job a lot less profitable" apart from de-duplication? I don´t see how that is going to happen technically since the network is agnostic to content unless chunks are identical.
Sorry, but I don´t know which argument you refer to. Could you repeat?
Not really. The network cannot create a semantic relation between content quality and data that is between originator and uploader. Deduplication only works if the file remains exactly the same (excluding meta-data as far as I understand).
Well, if it wasn´t profitable I wonder why people stress it´s importance for creators. Of course, we do not know since there is no precise and calculable concept, however what we do know is that creators have expenses that are much higher than the expenses of a person who simply copies content. People on this said have argued that re-uploading costs money, true, but uploading does, too, so for someoone with a popular platform there is always surplus (the cost of the process of creation) to skim.
I never argued that there won´t be original content. Why would I? My whole (main) point was that people make money on the back of creators and Youtube is an obvious empirical evidence. The fact that Youtube now allows creators to monetize and original content creators take part in this process doesn´t change anything (there have been original content creators before that - again, that doesn´t make the point less valid). Actually, currently Youtube somewhat controls monetization of pirated content (following its very own agenda, of course), on the SAFEnetwork such control won´t take place, do you disagree?
I know the thread, but I don´t see your point here. This thread is about the question whether or not MaidSafe should implement PtP, right? So I filed a concern (not my main point though as I wrote) about doing so referring to reputation.
Also, I actually said in my post that there will be criticism anyway, however it won´t be the "same problem" as you suggest. The common defense has been, that the argument being made against SAFE would need to be leveled against ISPs in general as well - this is a fair point I guess. However, a network that not only allows to store heinous content, but also automatically rewards uploaders by the popularity of their content is a PR nightmare. SAFE can become very popular even if all mainstream users think of it as a "criminal tool". Here I just pointed out how PtP could affect reputation. One doesn´t have to care for PR, in fact everyone has to decide the relevance of reputation on his*her own. To me it matters, to others it doesn´t.
Yes, and that clearly proves my point that most people have more interest in getting their content for free than to reward the creators (who cannot create without income). The decision to use a service is not based on "moral" (rewarding the original creator) but ease of use. I still don´t see why that would be different on SAFE. You refer to "the tendency is to go after the original" but where is the proof for that tendency? The reference to "the highest quality" is imho irrelevant, since an automatically generated copy that avoids de-duplication doesn´t necessarily mean loss of content quality (why would it?).
I agree: anyone can watermark copied content and it is up to the people to check whether it is "original" or not. That´s why I said "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."
Generally, I second what @cl0ck3d said about playing devils advocate. It´s astonishing what kind of reactions you can get in a thread that is about debating...
I don´t feel encouraged to debate you on this one since your post is full of ad-hominem attacks. Your opinion has been heard, but I can´t see how it is a helpful contribution to a debate when your response is anything but ridiculing the sentiments of others. With "Enough! I want X" there is no way to have a conversation.