I wonder how one would do that without compromising anonymity and security. Art does not necessitate a desire for real life noteriety and celebrity.
The way I got it is that the network will automatically reward people that upload a popular file since the network will see this file as being useful to others. So if someone would upload their music and allow for it to be streamed they would automatically generate some Safecoin. Initially they would have to spend a small amount of Safecoin to upload the file of course, and Iâm not sure there are any details known about the break-even point. It would be great that with letâs say 5000 âlistensâ you would break even and then earn small amounts of Safecoin for a every 1000 âlistensâ.
If it works like that it would make sense to make it free to stream and to perhaps offer a download for a one time Safecoin payment. This way people that want to be able to listen to the song offline can get it by paying for it. People that donât want to pay can listen to it for free online.
I donât think you can prevent people from downloading it anyway. If you only offer a paid stream thereâs a fair chance someone will just capture the stream (I donât see how this can be prevented) and then make an MP3 out of it and offer it up for download somewhere else (and then make money off of it themselves if the file is popular).
Yes, totally agree that the optimum model would be donation based only without the 1% cut - and just use Safecoin, no need for âseedsâ.
This is the âPay the Producerâ model which has not yet been decided as far as I know due it being highly contentious. The community are a bit split on this I think, but Iâm totally against myself. 
So I guess my memory is deceiving me on this one then. Iâm sure it has itâs pros and cons.
1 Like
Yes, hence the split of opinion. Itâs not something that is definitely going to happen though, so apps canât base their whole model on it basically.
1 Like
So, how does the platform generate revenue?
Itâs very easy for people to stick their music on a website for tips, but there is real value of platforms that serve music to people in a form that they want to use.
So everyone should be able to download any music for free without paying the creators, and everyone should be able to use a nice music platform for free without paying its creators?
Do you think that sounds realistic? If people were good at tipping it could work, but Iâm skeptical because thereâs nothing stopping that working today, and few artists & software makers chose that model, probably for good reason.
1 Like
Itâs not a hole in logic - itâs a view that people actually want to pay the artists & will pay for convenience in listening to music.
Today people could simply use torrents & never pay for music, but many choose to pay for it despite this. I expect this will be the case for many on the Safe network too, although itâs true that getting caught will be less likely, and the pirating experience better than torrents.
I donât think itâs worth us discussing much further, as we have fundamentally different views on this; you see things as bad that I see as ok & normal.
Recorded music is a product with a market. If you can come up with a better model that artists and consumers want to use & works financially, great, but itâs not obvious that music as a product is incorrect, even if itâs what you feel.
One wants to make sure revenues go to artists, and the other wants to try to grab as much of the revenue for themselves.
Other than this, theyâre playing completely different functions, so surely you can see differences?
Handing almost all revenues to the artists isnât a minor change that should be ignored by saying âso what?â - it could massively benefit artists who struggle to support themselves.
1 Like
DonationsâŚ
This is essentially a content aggregator (middle man) that takes a 1% cut isnât it?
How much does it cost to maintain/operate such a thing - because thatâs what Iâd be looking at.
Letâs imagine it does become wildly popular and makes ÂŁ100m per week sayâŚitâs surely not going to cost ÂŁ1m per week to run. Who takes all the profit? Iâm not saying itâs wrong, just not my preferred model.
Sorry, Iâm not with you, I am talking about the 1% and didnât claim any of the above. This is exactly what N99 claim in the whitepaper anyway - so take it up with themâŚlol. The whitepaper model relies on PtP - which I see as a tax on every user.
That attitude may be changing as we explore the âsharing economyâ more. I recently heard an interview with some female singer who had roaring success with this model, it was an interesting story but canât for the life of me remember who it wasâŚso no supporting evidence, just that I believe the Zeitgeist is changing.
Ahh but there is⌠without which there cannot be the initial coin offering. 
The implication of having a donation only model is that users would be able to download music for free without paying creators, and use the platform for free without paying its creators if they wanted to.
Iâm sceptical that donation only will lead to a good result, though itâd be great if it did.
Itâs worth experimenting. I agree that there is a lot of change happening and itâll be interesting to see where it moves in the coming years.
What is certain is that it wonât just carry on as before with middlemen and gatekeepers taking so much from the artists. Iâm not against platforms playing a role and taking a fair cut (and Iâd say 1% is extremely fair), but not treating people like Spotify etc do at the moment, which is rubbish (e.g. far less than a penny per stream going to artists).
I like the idea of investors & innovators who create successful businesses getting a return on investment, as otherwise thereâs no incentive to take the risks required to build anything new and push design & technology forward, so itâs not a problem for me if they get a profit.
Iâd also support an initiative where any profits were shared with artists, because if itâs a massive ÂŁ100m per week success, it can only be that because of the artists, so the proceeds should be shared with them as well as providing a good return to those who took the risk & put in the effort to make it happen.
2 Likes
As i understand it you think that we should build n99 for free give away for free and give everything away - my question is how then do we live? I have had the misfortune to have lived in countries where this kind of thinking is the paradigm, of which am more than happy to discuss in length. Will be releasing documentation soon which will give an in depth overview of how we at n99 will reward all investors of n99.
Profit is not a negative word as you make out - whats more why is it important? you could use this no profit logic and turn it on anyone or group of people who are successful. Being creative is time consuming a journey requiring many many hours/days weeks - and we have bills etc to pay - try creating being an individual in a collective - you create - we the collective enjoy - you create for free - we the collective enjoy in essence the current musicians are nothing but organ grinders paradigm.
The white paper you mention was written in July 2k14, have discussed the procs/cons of PTP earlier in this thread - one of the many reasons behind Seeds;
Why charge vs free?
If it were free to stream etc what to stop a mass bot attack?
X [bot] posts content for free then plays that content draining all the resources of the network.
Aim is make this levy as tiny as possible - this levy for want of a better word will be set to high - the aim in future dev will be to create opportunities for this automatic - eg an A.I which sets levy just above the attack bot price level. In essence when you have crypto token eg Seeds that are rewarded via plays etc then it would be foolish not to consider the possibility of bot attacks or any attack on the networks resources with uttermost consideration.
Nothing stopping you 
this is very essence of competition innovation something creative people understand very well
the very nature of life itself all is change all is an illusion we [esp in the decentralized paradigm] are in essence prodding into the dark void with sticks
As mentioned have discussed PTP in this thread i have my own thoughts on PTP one of the many reasons behind making n99 ecosphere with the potential to thrive
Would love to hear more on this Have spent many many hours discussing this with many many various artists musicians etc on LIFE IS PEOPLE with all models there are pros and cons and in essence as many choices availible to creative people can only ever be a great thing a market place of ideas where all concepts etc can be put on the seat of reason for questioning this is very essence of freedom choice competition innovation. In an age of increasing complexity the need to communicate is essential - one of the many reasons decentraliztied platforms like n99 are key to building solutions and step by step creating a decentralized paradigm where there are no more middle men a commonwealth of human knowledge [ its one of the many drives behind the n99 CNS [central nervous system [message/chat] I more than most fully understand the differculties of getting people to communicate #herdingcats
This is either your obtuse misunderstanding of middlemen or the your belief we should all create for free and that is current paradigm where we the artists / musicians / writers etc are being right royal screwed. A mentality that demands art music etc for free who see being creative as little more than just a service who demand they have right to own any piece of music art etc do with it as they please - the mindset whats mine is mine whats yours is mine - the aristocratic class for whom all art music is nothing more than a service given.
n99 is in essence a tool for creative people.
Why have i spent many years building n99?
why all the time energy given to building a platform that gives 99% to the creators?
Could direct you to the many many editions of LIFE IS PEOPLE the many discussions vis a via every topic raised in this thread and much more on the drives behind n99. why if we were corp sell outs etc etc then why have we resisted countless calls to float seeds?
Why not just follow the well beaten path that many other projects have done and just pump and dump?
Why have i spent many years building n99?
In short im a creator n99 is a tool i as a artist musician author will use.
Be great to discuss these topics anytime on LIFE IS PEOPLE the door is always open for you to come on as a guest
Above all want to thank you and in essence all questions comments the good the bad the support is greatly appreciated - discussed and inspiration in the step by step building of n99
#step by step the ERA of the CREATIVE is RISING
#you are the brains of the CNS
7 Likes
If people choose to give artists money why not have a tipping and donation system? Why bother with a quid pro quo system of paying to download or stream? And even further why bother with the delusion of copyright? If you are operating under the assumption people can get it for free but some are choosing to pay then why making payment a prerequisite and attempt to enforce this prerequisite?
No, no I donât. Please enlighten me. The corporation wants to make as much profit for themselves so they make payment a prerequisite and use copyright and pay to play tactics. The artist wants to make as much profit for themselves and so makes payment a prerequisite and uses copyright and pay to play tactics. How are they different? They do exactly the same thing.
Yes but they are still attempting to turn art into product which is an epic fail in the information age.
Some people have to learn the hard way I suppose.
Obviously youâve never been on second life.
Let me explain the model that works on there. Artists play live at venues. Both the venues and artists are supported by tips and donations. Other supporting staff like announcers, managers and so forth are also paid this way or paid by the artists or venues directly. But ultimately itâs all funded by people choosing to fund the performances. People are motivated to support said venues and artists not only because they like the music but because if they dont support them the venue and or artists will stop providing their services. If youâre an artist and donât get tips you may end up moving to a different venue or stop performing publcally altogether. If youâre a venue and donât get tips you may not be able to provide the venue and have to shut down, this in turn affects everyone that attends your venue both fans and artists alike. This is just a very basic explaination but it gives you the basic idea.
What stops tipping today is there isnât enough disincentive for lack of tipping. People treat tipping like charity, as if they are tipping the guy playing on the street corner. But if they went to their favorite concert and had to tip realizing that the rock stars they were screaming for would disband the next month if they DIDNâT tip they wouldnât feel so flippant about tipping. People donât care about the guy playing on the street corner but they do care about the rock stars. Itâs he caring and attachment to the artist that makes tipping work, itâs the relationship. Tipping works when an artist forms a relationship with their audience. But when you treat your art like product that relationship often gets neglected. People donât buy what you do they buy why you do it. And in the case of art they also buy who you are, or at least who they perceive who you are. Art is another form of politics.
1 Like
Trust me i have zero love for Coprs like Disney et al however you state
âForce peopleâ
How?
And why shouldnât a comp charge people for content? they produce esp as at of day you have choice not to watch
thats the beautiful thing about choice vs being forced
any content download via n99 is YOURS to do with what you DESIRE
âA music library sold to the public: we make most of our money by selling monthly memberships to the general public at Magnatune.com. Musicians get 50% of the $15 monthly fee, based on what each member downloads. Every time someone downloads your album, you get paid. As this is our main business, this is good moneyâ What about this model is free?
art - music - creation is in essence both a service and a product. Musicians can for example be a service eg to help fill a venue - collaborate in other creative fields eg artist / musician colaborating to produce a new creative piece of content - to being music backdrop for a wedding / football game etc - why make it an service vs product? When i create a painting from the initial concept via the pencil on paper to the oil on canvas let alone the many many hours spent perfecting the skill and finally arriving at the point of learning when to say this is done time to walk away the final stroke is me as an artist signing that piece of art - all the time knowledge and skills that have gone into producing this then i am supposed to not have choice to say its a product of my time energy skills?
For artists in the period before the modern era (before about 1800 or so), the process of selling art was different than it is now. In the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance works of art were commissioned, that is, they were ordered by a patron (the person paying for the work of art), and then made to order. A patron usually entered into a contract with an artist that specified how much he would be paid, what kinds of materials would be used, how long it would take to complete, and what the subject of the work would be.
Not what we would consider artistic freedomâbut it did have its advantages. You didnât paint something and then just hope it would sell, the way artists often do now.
Jan van Eyck, The Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele, oil on wood, 141 x 176.5 cm (including frame), 1434-36 (Groeningemuseum, Bruges) 
Patrons often asked to be included in the painting they commissioned. When patrons appear in a painting we usually refer to them as donors. In this painting, the donor is shown kneeling on the right before the Virgin Mary and the Christ Child. Jan van Eyck, The Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele, oil on wood, 141 x 176.5 cm (including frame), 1434-36 (Groeningemuseum, Bruges).
What was the status of the artist before the modern era?
One way to understand this is to think about what you âorderâ to have made for you today. A pizza comes to mindâordered from the cook at the local pizza parlorââIâll have a large pie with pepperoni,â or a birthday cake from a baker âIâd like a chocolate cake with mocha icing and blue letters that say âHappy Birthday Jerry.ââ Or perhaps you ordered a set of bookshelves from a carpenter, or a wedding dress from a seamstress?
Does our culture consider cooks and carpenters to be as high in their status as lawyers or doctors (remember Iâm not asking what we think, but what value our culture generally gives to those professions)? Our culture creates a distinction that we sometimes refer to as âblue collarâ work versus âwhite collarâ work.
In the Middle Ages and even for much of the Renaissance, the artist was seen as someone who worked with his handsâthey were considered skilled laborers, craftsmen, or artisans. This was something that Renaissance artists fought fiercely against. They wanted, understandably, to be considered as thinkers and innovators. And during the Renaissance the status of the artist does change dramatically, but it would take centuries for successful artists to gain the extremely high status we grant to âart starsâ today (for example, Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons, or Damien Hirst).
What we value has changed?
Simone Martini, The Annunciation, 1333, tempera on panel, 72 1/2 x 82 5/8" or 184 x 210 cm. (Uffizi, Florence)
Medieval paintings were often sumptuous objects made with gold and other precious materials. What made these paintings valuable were these materials (blue, for example, was often made from the rare and expensive semi-precious stone, Lapis Lazuli). These materials were lavished on objects to express religious devotion or to reflect the wealth and status of its patron. Today the value of a painting is often the result of something entirely different. Picasso could have painted on a napkin and it would have been incredibly valuable just because it was by Picassoâart is now an expression of the artist and materials often have little to do with the worth of the art.
in essence this is a wider debate that has roots many hundreds of years ago at time of patrons and countless middle men a time or elite aristocratic class who spent much time an money in building a paradigm they desired - to paint them the art they desired - artist were nothing more than a service there to do bidding they desired [ not to say the chosen artists werent at times greatly rewarded ] then came the guttenburg press and all the following steps that lead to of which artists taking ownership of their art began.
Perhaps the use of language was misleading, Copyright for creative content (art / music / literature etc) innately belongs to the person who created it (i.e. the artists) in all jurisdictions. Exploitation of artists in the past has occurred when they have signed over their copyright to the record company / agent in return for financial advances to fund recording / tours / promotion etc. Some high profile examples are: Paul McCartney purchasing back the copyright to his tracks decades later for exorbitant sums of money and Prince changing his name so that Sony did not have the rights to his as yet unwritten material, Both actions being to counteract naively signing contracts which handed over copyright in their youth. N99 will facilitate enforce ability of copyright for individual content providers not replace it.
If you want to market art then market it as a service and donât attempt to play an information gate keeper and turn art into a product in the information age. Art can be a product; a service, a gift or a curse AT THE CREATORS DISCRETION, as it always has been. n99 is a service that connects content providers with content consumers in a fun and rewarding way. I would be interested to know how the artists benefit from the free advertising eg magnatune are receiving.?
Why charge vs free?
If it were free to stream etc what to stop a mass bot attack?
X [bot] posts content for free then plays that content draining all the resources of the network.
Aim is make this levy as tiny as possible - this levy for want of a better word will be set to high - the aim in future dev will be to create opportunities for this automatic - eg an A.I which sets levy just above the attack bot price level. In essence when you have crypto token eg Seeds that are rewarded via plays etc then it would be foolish not to consider the possibility of bot attacks or any attack on the networks resources with uttermost consideration.
whos making it illegal?
n99 doesnât set laws have its army judges etc leave that failed model of laws et al in the current paradigm it failed then will always fail
beauty of choice 
we just offer as many opportunities as possible to reward the artists musicians the choice is yours that is the very essence of freedom
This is a very complex question of which seeds is solution [ as discussed prevoiusly ] or for more check out the seeds overview videos
Seeds are in essence are a watermark
As mentioned above vis a via seeds
Trust i covered / answered the scarcity/pay to play streaming and downloading part earlier in this reply
for all the many reason discussed in this reply, we are people I am a person who more than most has flown the flag for decentralization all my life thought back in 93 the internet would be the decentralized paradigm that the few of us flying the flag back then were waiting for however what happened is history a generation sat back voted Blair Corps hi-jacked internet gate keepers got powerful resulting in current paradigm - we can aim for perfection with a mindset of question everything after all we are all living on a rock that tumbles through space #weareallgoingtodie
Does it matter? end of day its about manifesting intent then let people decide that its the duality that is freedom
matter of opinion however your first and only person that has ever called n99 let alone me a sellout and as is in public domian have spent many hours via LIFE IS PEOPLE et al with many many artists - musicians - authors - free thinkers - and never once has anyone called n99 or me a corp sell out it be like saying anyone right of Noem Chomsky is nazi
That is beauty of freedom all opinions welcome and end of day no-one is forcing you to use n99 and the tools are there to build a platform you desire
#Im a not a number i am a free man
3 Likes
Perhaps the use of language was misleading, Copyright for creative content (art / music / literature etc) innately belongs to the person who created it (i.e. the artists) in all jurisdictions. Exploitation of artists in the past has occurred when they have signed over their copyright to the record company / agent in return for financial advances to fund recording / tours / promotion etc. Some high profile examples are: Paul McCartney purchasing back the copyright to his tracks decades later for exorbitant sums of money and Prince changing his name so that Sony did not have the rights to his as yet unwritten material, Both actions being to counteract naively signing contracts which handed over copyright in their youth. N99 will facilitate enforce ability of copyright for individual content providers not replace it.
#step by step the ERA of the CREATIVE is RISING
2 Likes
Awesome but you donât need to have love for them for them to exploit your system.
Are you saying people shouldnât buy box sets?
Sure you have choice but you have that same choice now. I know because Iâve bought music from artists, in person, and had them sign the CDs. A few of my favorite bands are from small obscure bands no one has ever heard of. But there is nothing stopping a big label from selling through n99 either and given their vastly superior power and influence whatâs to prevent them from having the advantage over the little guy?
Good. But then why do you not see the futility of worrying about copyright?
See to me these two statements:
In the former you are advocating a pay to play mentality. Pay to stream and pay for each piece of content. In the latter youâre acknowledging the user owns their content. In the information age these two statements are incompatible because as soon as you release data on the net itâs no longer yours. Intellectual property is a myth. If you upload something then itâs public. The only way to keep something private is for it to be encrypted and kept private and artists make their living through exhibition. So thatâs why art as a product is highly futile and art is now a service.
The part where they donât try to use DRM or other such copyright enforcement. The part where if one downloads their music it just works.
Why make art a service instead of a product? Because when you digitize something you can copy it infinitely with zero reproduction cost which gives it a rapidly declining value ending in it being free. This is true of all digital information. You can sell your painting so long as it stays a physical object but as soon as it becomes digital itâs no longer a product but rather a service. Thatâs why when I visited an art gallery yesterday they had a rule against taking pictures. They wanted to control their visuals because they were selling physical pieces of art. And given weâre talking about a new internet here itâs assumed weâre talking about digital art not just physical art.
No generally when you do contract work it doesnât offer you as much creative expression. But it does offer greater financial security.
Tell me how much you value your plumber next time your toilet is overflowing and spewing sewage all over the place, or a carpenter when you need a house built, or en electrician when your wiring shorts out.
You mention art stars but I see who people glorify and itâs not the names you mentioned but rather pop stars like Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian. I donât really have a thing against low brow humor and jiggling boobs per se but itâs not exactly innovative and drawing from the crown chakra if you get what Iâm saying.
What people glorify these days isnât innovation and intellect.
Art doesnât have to stop being an expression of self expression. But I donât think art as primarily self expression can sell as a product. If i wrote a book to make money I wouldnât write it the same way as if I was just writing to be self expressive. In the former Iâd be catering to a market, the latter Iâd simply expressing my personality.
I have to go but will write more later.
1 Like
Yes, yes it does. Being free doesnât abdicate one from responsibility, perception or how oneâs actions affect others. And as I said if individual artists do the same as corporations they arenât all that much different than the corporations.
To put this in another context if you had 1 big corporation dumping toxic waste in rivers and lakes and 1,000 individuals dumping toxic waste in rivers and lakes the corporation wouldnât be much different than all those little individuals save it would be easier to sue the corporation. Thatâs it. But the action, and the affect on peopleâs lives, would be the same. Same as if both corporation and individuals switched to renewable energy. If they are all doing the same thing their impact is essentially the same.
If your business model and philosophy is essentially the same as the various corporations, if you THINK like they do, youâll get similar social impacts on society. And youâll be similarly vunerable to attack.
1 Like
NEW
Exclusive step by step glimpses of the n99 platform coming soon.
#Step by step the ants are coming
7 Likes
NEW
Discover the value of seeds with n99 and how they are distributed by the n99 seed engine n99 is a social and content sharing network, where content providers will be able to:
-upload content to a cryptographically-watermarked and secured, decentralized database;
-promote content via integrated social media tools;
-and receive direct rewards for network activity generated by their content.
For more information and latest n99 developments feel free to check out the new website https://network99.io/
#step by step the ants are coming
2 Likes
Not sure about the font choices or the dated green/black look, but I do love seeing your plan come together. I think youâre building something pretty cool and potentially useful. Just make sure it isnât forked and made easier on the eye with a few tweaks to the model ;).
I say this only as constructive criticism. Personally I invested because I wanted to see stuff on SAFE and I like your passion and dedication. Iâm just giving my honest, personal impression of the feel of it all atm.
Maybe users should be able to customise their display. It is the era of the creative after all
Good stuff though dude, I tip my hat to the hard work youâve done so far!
6 Likes
Atm we are in the process of framing an in-depth plan to config the site to address these very issues as they are on our mind too.
And now that nearly all features are loaded in it is time to get much deeper on appearance/user interface and functions.
I will always be open-ears for feedback no matter what it entails.
The glimpses of n99 interface etc where in essence the ink on paper stage oil on canvas is being created step by step
Thanks for the support it is great appreciated
Step by step by step the ERA of the CREATIVE is RISING
3 Likes