The model you propose is our preferred option (hence the proportional decimalisation of seeds for activity associated with content). In the seed engine video we used 1 seed as the upload / download cost as an example for illustration purposes to be able to demonstrate both the proportional nature and the and distribution flows of value with activity. The facility for user defined download cost is already incorporated in our design, the linking of upload and download cost however is a welcome suggestion and will be incorporated in our design.
Glad I could I help. Maybe at some point you’ll hire me on as a consultant or something. I’ve got all kinds of ideas.
#step by step the ERA of the CREATIVE is RISING
I have a question. When I buy a piece of art or whatever, do I own it? I mean I don’t have to rebuy it to download it do I? And can I share it outside n99? Can I download it to my HDD?
Just wanted to double-check, is the N99 testing phase that’s coming soon all on safenet? I know the APIs have progressed a lot now and MD is iterating so I’m presuming you’re using that, but wanted to hear it from the horses mouth?
A post was merged into an existing topic: SafeAppStore Official Thread
When a piece of content is uploaded to n99, the content provider retains ownership of the content. Users will be able to stream the content as they do now on social media sites with the added option of chargeable download (in seeds) with 99% of this charge going direct to the content provider. As this transaction is between the content provider and user, usage permissions will be in control of the content provider (on a fair use / personal use license for example), so you will be able to download to your hard drive a copy of content you have purchased for personal use. Safeguards against content theft are being built into the network with mechanisms for the community to alert other users when copyright has been breached. In addition, we are currently scoping functionality for second phase release in which content collaborations (i.e. music score for a film) will have proportional distribution of the seeds earned by the combined content.
First phase of testing is functional testing only and will be run on our current server as end users are participating. Once the functional testing phase has been completed with all accepted change requests incorporated (approximately 2 to 4 weeks), performance testing will commence in parallel on the existing server system and Safe Network. Once performance testing has completed satisfactorily, penetration testing will commence on the Safe Network before final release of a Safe Network hosted n99.
So in essence you’re building iTunes 2.0 with DRM included. Okay n99 just earned my disfavor. We don’t need more corporate mentality and information gate keeping. I’m not going to pay to stream content. If I can’t download it and keep the file then it’s not worth paying for. This is exactly why I don’t bother with Spotify.
Pay to stream. Yep I had a feeling n99 was going to become a corporate sell out project.
Neither would I, but are you sure it does or is it just download? It doesn’t seem clear that streaming is paid for:
Could I ask why this just alerts about “copyrighted” material. This would seem to protect all the big corp type players, but do nothing for small original content producers Can you please explain the mechanism to address this aspect. Cheers
Surely small original content producers would be hurt by people re-posting their content and taking credit for it as well as big corporate types?
Pay to stream wasn’t mentioned in the comments you replied to, but even if it was, that wouldn’t make it a corporate sellout - just a revenue option for artists that you don’t like & won’t use.
I think the idea of paying to stream is useful; you can know you’re supporting the artist directly, but may not yet want to commit to purchasing their full album. Maybe the streams you’ve paid for can also count as credit toward buying the album if you want it. However, I don’t know if N99 will offer the option of Pay to stream, but I would be quite happy if it did in addition to pay for download.
Maybe it’s my ignorance of copyright law, because that’s exactly what I’m getting at. Is it the case that any piece of original work is automatically copyrighted, or something that works like a patent and is applied for? Copyright/patent laws are different in different jurisdictions too, so how does it work here?
Essentially, the (maybe misguided) basis I was working on was that small producers are less likely to “copyright” anything, but if its just something that’s an automatic “right” in law the basis was wrong. It would just leave the jurisdiction thing.
What mechanism prevents me from downloading say an album, then re- uploading multiple copies or multiple times for profit.
I get that there is a mechanism to alert community, but how effective is that going to be in reality? Would it not just be a continual arms race, with no real consequences for perpetrator and no real defence for the original small content provider. The big copyrighted films etc can afford to take violators to court - the small guy can’t, so is at a disadvantage to the big boys.
Yes, copyright is an automatic right with no cost associated, though small steps can be taken to help with enforceability in the future. On N99 I guess the challenge will be proving to the community that the work is originally yours & not someone elses, but it’ll be as or more important for the small players as the big ones (if a big player steals a small player’s work, how will they be called out, given their bigger following?).
I don’t know how it’ll work, but there needs to be some mechanism to make it more difficult for people to rip off artists for their own gain. The methods implemented on day 1 may not be perfect but I’m sure they will be improved upon in time.
Paying to stream: N99 has absolutely no intention of being a corporate sellout! payments to stream are micro-payments, 99% of which goes directly to the content provider. It is a means of verifying genuine user interaction with content to ensure the integrity of charts and analytical data provided to content providers and users alike (2,000 views of of video are genuine views by real people) If you are not happy giving a micro payment to a band to listen to their track, or a podcaster to watch their podcast or a writer to read their blog that is entirely your choice, n99 is perhaps not the network for you. There are however a great many people who are happy to pay if they know the money is going directly to the artists.
no more middle men
99% direct to artists
words i wrote back in 94
Sticks and stones will brake my bones but words will never hurt me - have never been will never be a sell out
That sounds great when you frame it in the context of individual artists but it could also be used by big corporations like Disney or Paramount to force people to pay every time they want to watch their favorite cartoon or episode of Startrek, or whatever. n99 could easily become the new model for TV. Let me remind you there is no way to verify how “big” any given “content provider” is. It’s just a username on SAFE just like anything else. So while yes n99 could be used by individual artists it could also be used by big conglomerates as well. And no I’m not comfortable paying to stream from anyone individual or corporate alike. If I wanted to do that I’d watch television or go on netflix or something. If I download something I want to own it. I want to be able to load it on my phone, mp3 player, put it on an external hard drive, make amvs out of it, whatever. That’s why magnatune is a far more appealing company to me than itunes (not to mention they have far better curated music). Because if you download from magnatune you can do whatever you like with your files. In fact they ENCOURAGE you to share the music downloaded from there so long as you mention where you got it because that’s free advertising for them. Pirating is free advertising. I DESPISE copyright and the attempt by many artists and corporations to attempt to create artificial scarcity using art. Art and information is now a service not a product. If you want to market art then market it as a service and don’t attempt to play an information gate keeper and turn art into a product in the information age. It doesn’t matter if you’re an individual or a corporation: If you try to prevent someone from using the file as they may using DRM and go around suing people over copyright you’re still doing the same thing. You’re still attempting to create information artificial scarcity.
I see what happened there
So, who got the 1% if not the middle man?
Just read white paper which doesn’t really explain the “seeds” use - is there an updated version?
Here’s a couple of other things that may no longer be correct?
"This white paper will assume that JS developers understand the basic idea of how the SAFE Network pays SafeCoin to affiliated apps and deposits the same in their wallets"
" Users freely use n99 and either listen to, view or download content from the app’s channels."
"users can either freely listen to content via N99 or download content to their machines at their discretion at no cost."