It doesn’t prevent another guy from doing the same “crowdfunding” with the same picture (named and described differently of course), as long as it’s hard to search for digital content.
@janitor How would he do the crowdfunding with the same picture when it was never released?
Edit: I guess you mean afterwards. Then it wouldn’t matter because the originator was paid fairly.
i know but this is a win-win situation, because the first author is payed in the first place, and afterwards he doesn’t mind what happens with the picture. he got the value of his work
1 Like
Yeah, but how does the prospective buyer you know he’s the first author?
As a person considering to pay in, one may think “Could be yet another scam”.
the buyer doesn’t care about the artist, he cares about the art. it’s a fundamental art law 
1 Like
Well if you don’t trust the author/product why would you buy? Buying is always the expression of a sufficient trust relation. You should know what you buy and rom whom you buy. (besides it would be way more efficient to just sell any file - you don’t need the original picture)
Thanks for the clarifications @bugsbunny. I understand more now.
@Artiscience, one possible scenario of abuse could be as @janitor stated, I assume the buyer must be able to view a thumbnail of the art before purchase, what is to stop me from copying that thumbnail, giving it a different title and description, collecting money and then disappearing? This could be accomplished on many levels, copying websites that require paid GETS etc.
The reason this goes against the core standard of SAFE is that it is Access For Everyone, if we charge for GETS then the Access is only available to those who can afford it.
I like the idea and see it more as an APP. Some may not like the idea, e.g. If I create art and I value that piece at 2000SFC, that means each piece costs 2000SFC, so following the proposal I only get a one time income of 2000SFC as opposed to 2000SFC X #buy’s.
Questions: In regards to digital art/music, the piece can be multiplied a massive amount of times, the trust then goes to the creator that once it is sold, it won’t be sold again, what would be the process to enforce this? Also the trust goes to the buyer, what would prevent the buyer from reselling it and what would be the process to enforce this? DRM? A useless process as we have learned from past.
If I create digital art and I value it at 2000SFC, why can’t I sell it at e.g. 20SFC and in turn I would need to sell to 100 buyers to reach my value, if I can’t sell it to 100 persons then I overvalued the piece.
I think this idea touches the very complicated area (esp in digital works) of copyright infringement. There are many sides.
One opinion I have is the idea of promoting creations for a very low price, considering thinking big and starting small. e.g. A great piece of art is sold for a very low price causing a viral buying spree, in turn the creator gets known for his/her low prices (and magnificent art) and also makes his/her valued income by the viral buying. This can be viewed as negative buy art collectors, many pieces are so greatly valued not by their creativity but by their cost, cheap art can damage the creator.
why not to be sold again? if you buy a car, you can sell it without having to deal with copyright, because the first author already got the value of his work. same as with digital work. if the author get the value, he does NOT own the creation anymore. greedy corporations and media drill copyright into our minds the way they see it from the perspective of milking the cow.
not all the GETS cost. depends on the uploader. if he chooses to charge $1 or $100 or $0, it’s up to him.
1 Like
um, like you said
My question was what would be the process to stop the original creator from reselling the art? Yes, I agree the buyer could do a resell but that would be dishonest when the art is now available for “free right on the source”. Essentially, I am paying for something that I could just wait to have for free, I am contributing/donating to an artist for his/her income, I am not buying something of value.
What is to stop everyone from charging GETS?
For my knowledge, could you refer me to the documentation on this please? Thanks.
you can’t do anything from preventing reselling by original author or other person, with the exception of not charging gets per occurrence once the goal amount is reached. for a picture one could use prntscreen or for a song one could use a recorder. the essence is to sell something from barebone, without relying on third parties
i think he speaks of the uploader automatic remuneration by the system (the 10% tax from farmers)
I don´t really get how this is a problem. The use cases would look like that: 1. A content creator uploads his work to SAFE and set the charge for a GET request. 2. Heshe links to the content on hisher page 3. Customers purchase the content. 4. Once enough customers paid for the content it is encrypted and turns into public domain.
The truth is, the scam which you describe can take place in ANY environment - in the current system and even more with SAFE. You may ask yourself what keeps Amazon to send me a random set of garbage when I paid for a book on their checkout system and what makes people to buy there? And what keeps Silkroad vendors from ripping off their customers and why do people buy there? The truth is that as a customer you are responsible for every action since you cannot expect the vendor to provide you with good quality. Whenever you purchase a good, you need to trust the vendor, otherwise you shouldn´t buy. And I have to say that when you want to buy the album of your favourite band, but instead you buy from a guy named cheapycheapydownloads I guess you were sort of irresponsible. Anyway, if you´d receive your product even that would be fine for you as a buyer.
The big advantage of cryptocurrencies is that they allow for direct contact between vendors and buyers is that there is no middleman necessarily involved, which is why you can have direct relations of trust between people and you can also create webs of trust.
Yes, it means Secure Access for Everyone but not Free Access to Everything. I as a content creator can restrict your access to my work - would you say that´s against the “core standard”? Of course not, because it´s absolutely up to me under which circumstances I share with you.
No, you can of course sell your work at 2000 each buy (that would be the Example 1) - point is that in some cases your work will be much more valuable than you could ever charge from one person. In this case you´d have Example 2.
As @bugsbunny says, I refered to the automatic payout by the system which was discussed at a fixed rate of 10% (will seek for links on the forum) The Safecoin are charged from the payout that originally goes to the farmers. In this case uploaders are rewarded by a rate that was set by the coders. I don´t see why this should be a static rate. It sets an incentive for basically anyone to make profit out of the content of others. I prefer this to be 0% with the ability to charge whatever I as the creator consider valuable. As long as there is transparence with regard to cost I don´t see the problem. To me the alternative sounds as if people would ask content creators to provide all their work for free.
1 Like
That´s the whole point of it. We have copyright in our current society because non-material goods couldn´t be protected sufficiently. However, when the author got the value he does NOT own the creation anymore same as a vendor who sold a car doesn´t own the car anymore.
1 Like
Response is appreciated and helps me to understand your proposal more 
This I disagree with, the vendor is responsible for their quality, otherwise they get a reputation as a scam artist. We as consumers have more rights than the vendor, it is after all our money we are spending. In the future, technologies such as SAFE will require vendors to be so much more transparent in their business practices.
Agreed, i just think there may be bad consequences if we are allowed to charge for GETS, I will need to search more and reflect on this.
Yes, it would be interesting to hear from Maidsafe an explanation as to why this choice was made.
1 Like
the sole reason for a buyer to buy from companies and not from casual sellers (i.e. old markets) is the consumer protection state regulation. since inside the network there is no state, the only thing that is on stake is the reputation of the seller
1 Like
Sounds like you are wanting SAFE network to become your money collector. By this I mean take over part of your internet store and do the charging for you.
Rather than asking SAFE to add even more complexity, why not simply set up an internet store, using a SAFE APP for it, and sell your wares. That way the SAFE core can remain simple safe secure free to read without fear that some how reading some data will deplete the reserves you just paid some safecoin for. How does the system tell the person that the GET they just did cost them 2 SAFEcoins worth of resources.
This also leads to the situation where sites can have images, that automatically load when you visit their page which cost a lot when viewed. Imagine going to a site supposedly about goodiegoodieyumyum but find that each image depleted all your spare reserved prepaid PUTs (or reserved resources). You might have bought a couple/few SAFEcoins worth because you plan to upload some files, but the link to that site caught your eye first.
Just have a store app and do it simply. That way you have much greater control how/when you are paid and release the content.
2 Likes
Sure, no worries, communicating ideas always spark moments of confusion 
Well, let´s state it that way: we are all responsible for ourselves, right? So the buyers are responsible to look out carefully what they are purchasing (because otherwise the money would be wasted) and the vendor is repsonsible to provide good quality (because otherwise customers won´t return).
Why would the customer have more rights than the vendor? That´s against all of my understanding of free markets. You come to an agreement and sign a contract. The vendor is not the employee of the customer. Ideally the customer and the vendor have compatible (not common) interests so they come to an agreement (as above mentioned), but I can see any sort of rationale that would put the customers into a better position than the vendor. If you want some, you need a third party - which would be against the idea of a decentralized network.
Again: SAFE doesn´t mean free access to everything - restrictions will exist whether GET requests can be charged internally or of it is done with an additional application. (they don´t have to exist though)
Actually its not only me who wants that, it´s how SAFE is meant to be designed. Look up the discussions re:10% cut to uploaders.
It makes sense that PUT requests cost money because the network works for you when you download content. The same goes for content: it makes sense to pay the creator of content - users already do it all over the internet with different currencies. Currently content creators are mostly paid with attention while the provider get the $. Services like Facebook, Twitter, WhatsAPP or Instagram are not free, they are only subsidised money wise so you enter your valuable data without noticing that you are actually paying.
To put content creators into the equation makes sense - and as I said: that´s not my personal idea, that´s how it is planned to be handled, only that the payment is a static value and that the money is taken from the farmers instead of consumers. (I also explained what the planned handling causes: people making money from work they didn´t do - yes that sounds kind of like turning SAFE into a money collector)
I must admit that I am unaware how PUT requests are handled, but I suppose that there will be some sort of confirmation before your Safecoin are spent on uploading the content. Same goes for downloading - you assume that GET request may simply discount your Safecoins, that would be really odd since only you have full control over your funds. As long as you are prompted to confirm there is absolutely no risk to lose funds.
1 Like
I scanned from a point further up in the thread. Tried to ensure this point wasn’t covered, so excuse if it’s been addressed.
GET and GET request are technical terms and define certain things. (see newly published Glossary in sidebar of safenetwork.wiki)
The problem here is that charging for GETs would break the security model of the network, I think. Plus GETs applies to chunks, which are only parts of files.
The idea is that ANYONE can request and be provided with chunks, as a native function of the network. The point is that only someone with the data map can decrypt the chunks thus received.
There is no way to charge for GETs, per se.
That said, there is no reason to assume that an app can’t allow an artist/producer to charge for the data map as a separate transaction. What the artist charges is going to vary. If too much is charged, few will pay and more will pirate. If too little charged compared to the target audience, not enough will be raised. The key is charging in the optimum range so that lots of people will not consider it much to pay and thus pay happily, even automatically. Once the artist considers enough has been paid, there is no reason not to just make the data map public.
Also remember that if the artist releases via N99 or another such app, then there will be an ongoing situation of collecting a percentage of the farming rewards generated by their content. This is ongoing income related directly to the consumption of their content.
3 Likes
Are you sure that is the case with public files? I don´t see how security would be breached when the data map is public.
The point is that you have to have a data map to know what to request, even if public. But building in some payment mechanism related to a GET would require permissions, payment confirmation (is it required? has it been paid? by whom?) that would cloud the GET function, at least complicating security issues if not breaking them.
You still have to know what chunks to ask for, even if public. But the node (and its managing group) holding the data only needs to get a request for any chunk to return it–simple. The mechanism you’re talking about–complex.
I think Bitshares DAC ideas might be on to something with regard to something better than IP/copyright.
Music, Movies, and Books
Copyright is the other form of intellectual monopoly that people simultaneously want and systematically violate the law every single day. We want artists to be rewarded for their work, but few actually want to pay for it if they can get a copy from a friend for free. Fortunately, prediction markets offer a far more useful tool for rewarding artists than copyright ever could.
Imagine an iTunes like music store where every song was ‘free to download’, but users could speculate on whether the song would become more or less popular. An artist releasing a new song would bet heavily
on its eventually hitting the #1 spot. Their fans who hear the song and agree would also bet money on the rising popularity of the song.
Meanwhile those who think the song is ‘no good’ would bet against it rising in popularity. This gives the fans financial incentive to share their music with their friends because they make money when the
popularity goes up.
Observers of the market could then ‘discover’ new songs simply by watching the trends and seeing which songs are rising in value, downloading them, and see what they think!
Here the artist makes money, users can support the artist by sharing the song, and observers can discover new music in a far more accurate method than letting the music labels and radio shows filter it for them.
The more I think about the two paradigms of thought of SAFE and Bitshares, there seems to be a lot of potential for symbiosis. Here is the link with more detail http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Potential_DAC_Ideas