SAFE TV to expedite mass adoption

Not my problem. If it’s pushed it can be pirated. Figure out a better system than constant rent-a-stream.

Oh for the love of toast! Start thinking creatively and come up with better business models. This is SAFE we’re talking about right? You’re paid by the GET right? So you’ll get paid for just putting out lots of content. So put it out there FOR FREE and attract lots of people to your content and therefore get more GETs and earn more safecoin. Stop trying to create artificial scarcity! Or produce lots of content out there and then get people to hire you for custom commision jobs. Or produce lots of digital work and then learn skills to produce physical works that you charge for. I mean for crying out load think outside the box some.

And I’m still not gaining possession of what I’m paying for. So really I don’t care if you think it’s “fair.” You’re talking a pay to play radio or stream which again applies to the DVD rental example. It’s only worth it to me if the cost of renting times the amount I watch is less than the amount I’d pay to download or buy the box set outright. It’s not the customer’s responsibility to make sure the artist is funded. Nor is it SAFE’s.

Really? You believe all artists ascribe to your theory? No. I’m an artist and I don’t agree with you at all. What about all those artists that DEPEND on being able to download content in order to create new content? Are you going to ban all the karaeke singers and mashtape artists and amv artists from SAFE because you don’t want them downloading content and would prefer them to be locked into streaming content because YOU want “some artist” to stay in control. What about THOSE artists that would find another network. See really we’re talking about a couple different kinds of artists here. We’re talking about Big Media artists, the ones from Hollywood, the ones that defend copyright and the MPAA and what not. And then we have the ones that download content, pirate music and movies and then remix all that into new works of art. The ones that create stuff with blender or download music to make backtracks for videos or kareoke or whatever else. The one’s that spend hours and hours splicing and remixing and editing things and posting them on youtube which people in turn spend hours and hours and hours watching. Youtube wouldn’t even be as big as it is if it weren’t for downloaded content. As much as they try and fight it Youtube thrives on piracy. So really I do contest this idea that “artists” would all leave SAFE if your streaming idea didn’t go through or failed. Not to mention your streaming idea would be an app in the first place and so people would need to opt to use it.

No it means you are establishing a different kind of relationship with the person you are dealing with. You are GIVING them something instead of exchanging something with them via quid pro quo. Just because something is of worth to me doesn’t mean I need to assign a monetary price to it and/or require someone to pay for it.

So don’t use fiat, or at least don’t keep your money there. Stupidity is not an excuse for infinite royalties.

I’m not saying don’t set up your rent-a-stream. I’m saying don’t expect customers to have some moral obligation to use it. Also consider you can do commissions or work for some company doing specific jobs they want done. Just don’t try to make money on some ludicrous idea of creating artificial scarcity. There’s all kinds of ways to make money as an artist and content producer. Just think creatively.

I don’t know. Maybe half a penny wouldn’t mean anything to someone in the first world but what about someone from India or Africa or something? Price is relative. And again I’d prefer to own my data and what I paid for.

2 Likes

You are valuing ideology. I value people’s lives. Real lives are at stake.

Lives cost money to maintain whether you want to accept it or not. Money isn’t ever going to be equally distributed so it’s either a random lottery by birth right or you have to compete for it. Artists have lives which society values a lot, but it is up to visionaries to design infrastructure to support the ability of artists to live.

All of your favorite content, all of the content you see on the Internet, which Facebook, Twitter and other greedy companies treat as if it should be given for free while they take all the profits, there are real people contributing that content, who are poor, who can’t pay their bills, so that social media companies and their shareholders in Silicon Valley can take all the profits?

SAFE Network has the chance to allow artists, journalists, and other content producers to make an honorable living generating content. The content producers are dramatically underpaid in society. If you want content you should be willing to sell some of your harddrive space in exchange for it but you shouldn’t expect to get it for free if you have a Safecoin.

If Safecoin isn’t going to be used for that then perhaps it doesn’t need all those decimal points?

If you are really concerned about greed why would you be looking at SAFE Network? Even if SAFE Network had micropayments and people on SAFE Network were getting rich making content go viral, it’s not at all fair to focus on greed on SAFE Network when you have so much more greed in other parts of the economy. At least people would be contributing to the SAFE Network economy and that is the only way to grow it, because being anti-capitalist isn’t going to grow an economy.

Let’s just say we can agree to disagree. It’s not that I have a problem with your principles, I just don’t think you’re being very practical. A lot of people say there should be abundance, but right now there isn’t abundance and people have to live today.

Nobody said it couldn’t be pirated. I said the stream model is more profitable for content producers than to sell copies of recorded content. If it’s a live stream good luck trying to pirate that.

If artists and other content producers are poor then perhaps they are giving too much. A functioning society should take care of people who give to it but ours does not. You can give as much as you want but that doesn’t mean everyone will follow or should follow your business model. In fact your business model if we are scientific about things is only producing poverty.

Now I’m not defending the MPAA, the RIAA or anything like that. That copyright system isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about micropayments for any content that a content producer uploads to SAFE Network. There should be no limits on the kinds of business models, or on the length of time of a royalty if people on the network choose to respect royalties.

You can be a pirate but like I said, for artists wise enough to switch to live content you’ll have to pay for a live stream. People will go live if necessary but in the end artists should be free to try unlimited kinds of business models with no ideological or emotional based limitations.

With currently available technology, if you believe we could not coexist without money then you’re thoroughly indoctrinated. Once freed by technology from mundane tasks, the availability of jobs/financial reward will result in an economic collapse. Poverty will become too blatant to ignore, social outcry will occur all the while those with great wealth attempt to justify their hold on resources. They too will fall. What do you think will replace our current economic system having all of these decentralized and alternative media forums in place? The world will unify, employ technologies to do all but the most intricate tasks, and a slurry of passionate volunteers will arise to solidify the new paradigm. Money will be a thing of the past. Those who seek superiority over another by way resource deprivement will be socially rejected. Basically it wont be “cool” anymore or even socially feasible. This is not communism friend, It is the birth of a stage 1 civilization. I hope not to have meet you on the battlefield to get there.

I’m not talking about beliefs. I’m talking about surviving right now. Beliefs don’t pay our bills. You don’t get paid as an activist. You as an activist are sacrificing yourself for your beliefs and you get the privilege of being able to follow your beliefs.

Not every content producer is an activist. Many content producers actually want to run businesses that rival the top businesses in the world.

Again if you have Safecoins they are only useful if you have something to spend it on. It’s only useful to have Safecoins if they can be earned. If you limit the reasons people have to to spend Safecoins you are slowing the economy of SAFE Network for ideological reasons but it’s not going to help.

Whether you agree or not, the content producers being able to get “rich” is what will bring content producers to SAFE Network and away from Youtube. If you want something on SAFE Network to compete with CNN then the business on SAFE Network has to be able to profit like CNN. A non-profit is not going to compete with CNN.

Ideology is nice but it does not pay the bills.

Sure it can. Haven’t you ever heard of a gift economy?

3 Likes

What you propose is limitless revenue. Most of which you don’t need to survive or even live comfortably. That is greed pure and simple. You negate your own argument by making such statements. You are greedy, just accept it for what it is. Stop attempting to reweave it into something more appealing and rational. Most of your posts on this forum follow this pattern. :sleepy:

1 Like

Of course. I’m one of the few people who has been promoting the gift economy but the gift economy isn’t about giving away for free. Bittorrent works with a gift economy if you think about upload/download ratios, but there is still an accounting in the form of ratio of giver/taker.

If SAFE Network is to be balanced then you should give to receive and you have Safecoins merely from giving storage space so you can easily afford to spend micropayments on content per access. There is no reason why you can’t pay per stream as well.

And it’s better because Safecoins would circulate.

It does matter the amount of revenue. If you’re talking about millions of dollars a year then probably you don’t need that to survive but if you’re talking about hundreds of thousands a year you actually might need that to survive.

No one really knows how much they need to survive. Have you heard of life extension? Transhumanism? Immortality? You don’t know how much money those treatments will cost. You don’t know what your healthcare will cost.

How much a person needs to survive is not something a person will know in advance and not everyone has the same beliefs on that. Some people want to live forever, others would call them greedy for not wanting to die of old age.

You perceive greed as a bad thing but then say abundance exists. If there is so much abundance then where is it? Why promote poverty to promote abundance?? Why complain about greed while not really focusing on the people who have the most yet focusing under a microscope the people trying to not be poor?

Artists, a vast majority of these people are not rich. If they do get “rich” it might be 50 million, 100 million, but that is nothing compared to the billionaires you should be focusing your attention on. So why do you focus on greedy artists?

As I said before, ideology will not pay your bills. Belief will not protect you from suffering in poverty. If you know and accept this then I can respect that you’ll sacrifice and potentially suffer for your beliefs. At the same time if people have different beliefs, or if they want to survive and not sacrifice or suffer in order to avoid looking greedy, I would say that is fine too.

You make some valid points about ones health. Though life extension at the unlimited expense of others has no virtue. It is parasitic in nature. Hundreds of thousands as you say can easily be obtained by a one time payment model. With no middle man or taxes, it would only take a few thousand people paying $10 - $20 to reach that goal in a very short time. Again, your infinite revenue model is a gluttonous one that never stops taking. The network does the heavy lifting in terms of infrastructure, provides you with the ability to farm for wealth, sell your content, request donations, all without having to do much maintenance, and you worry about survival? SAFE provides near pure profit. Rather than using your creativity to create new content and grow your wealth you parasitically draw from the same source incessantly. Not only is it lazy, its unsustainable. People will just move on. Try it and report back on the results.

I’ll be back tomorrow. Gonna sip on a rich pint then catch some zzz’s. Thank you all for your input!

It’s not just about affordability its also about ownership of data. It’s the same reason I don’t buy a kindle reader from Amazon and never will. Because they simple liscence ebooks to you, they don’t actually let you download them. Have you ever tried to download a kindle book onto your computer? It can be a real pain. I can get the kindle app on my tablet. I can even get free books. But I can’t get the book off the app and onto my device or onto my computer. Therefore I don’t own the data. It’s not just a matter of price. You could make the content free but if I couldn’t download it it would STILL be of lower value to me than data I could download. As long as the content provider insists on exclusive control of the data I’m not interested. I might pay if it was new music or a music matching kind of thing like last.fm but if it’s just straight up music that I could get elsewhere? Why? And if the artist is being a dick and not releasing his content somewhere for download or on a disc somewhere then why bother? What part of I want to own what I pay for is not getting through. Not just have permission to use, but OWN. As in have the actual files on my drive.

That can be easily tested with few extremely (in)appropriate videos.

It’s none of anyone’s concern whether (or not) you practice gluttony.
What bothers some is that “supporters” of this & that, such as yourself, feel entitled to tell others how they should manage their property, or organize consentual business relationship with others.

Tell us, Tonda, how much do you charge for your medical records and where can I get them for free?

What about small artists with cult like followings? You’re saying a song has to go viral in order to make the artist money? I think the artist should be able to make micropayment income whether it goes viral or not.

If 10,000 people pay $20 each over the course of a year that’s not bad for an artist even if its paid by streams.

I don’t know how you figure that infinite revenue is taking. Content provides life long value. It’s not like content becomes worthless after you consume it, it can even gain in value over time due to cultural significance.

Actually no it doesn’t provide near pure profit. Farmers have to maintain their servers and I don’t know where you get these ideas that somehow SAFE Network is pure profit.

Again it’s also not true that culture somehow loses significance over time. It can gain significance over time as well. There is no reason why a person should be required to follow any business model they don’t think will work for them and just because you say it’s greedy it doesn’t mean it’s not going to work.

If programmers demand a pre-mine do we complain? No we don’t because they provide lasting value. Content producers provide lasting value as well and if you access certain content a lot, then why shouldn’t the producer get paid a lot? Obviously it’s valuable enough to you that you want to access it all the time, so it might also be nice if the producers get the feedback loop incentive to produce more of it.

Capitalism, money, it’s just a form of communication. Micropayments make it clear because everyone can like with their payments and if you like something a lot then the producer gets paid a lot. If no one streams it then it’s less pay.

But at the same time if there is no passive income stream then there will be a lot less content. Games are streamed now, as are television shows, music, etc. Some content is live, such as news reports, and journalism, but there should be no cap on the amount of money these people can make unless you will cap every industry equally.

If you support these salary caps then you have to enforce it on every industry equally to be fair.

I actually agree with you on this argument of free software or creative commons but that doesn’t mean the creators shouldn’t get paid. It simply means that after creators get paid you can do whatever with it as you want as long as you’re not getting paid off their work.

There are a lot of different models but the point is that for books I can agree you do want to own a physical copy of a book and I’m not saying that information ought to be locked up like they are with academic journals.

I’m saying with SAFE Network you can have free access to information which actually also gets paid for. You have computation??? Mine for 20 minutes to access the content. You have spare storage? Share it.

If all digital content is given away for free then how would you build a SAFE Network economy? This isn’t to say I think all content should be for pay, or that the streaming model is the only model, or that knowledge should be locked up, but more that for certain artists or producers they’ll want to stream content and should be allowed to do so even if you don’t agree.

That isn’t the same as unfree software which you don’t control. It’s also not the same as the Amazon book although I do see you have a valid point with points which I agree with. At the same time if someone wants to be a writer they obviously cannot afford to give away their words for free unless SAFE Network is going to provide basic income so that writers and others can afford to live.

Every book is not going to be a best seller. And no one knows the optimal business model. Freedom is definitely important, but so is survival. It should not be freedom vs survival.

Why? Why do you think one kind of artist should get paid while another kind should work for free? Take karaoke for example. No the music isn’t original but the singing is, as is the time put in developing back tracks, creating videos or other media to marry music to lyrics nevermind all the work that goes into organizing venues, organizing people and all of that stuff. Why do you think all that labour and creativity should be free just because the music was created by someone else? Consider a song as 4 parts. There’s the score that is actually the written music. There’s the lyrics written by someone. There’s the music that’s played by someone. And there’s the vocals that’s sung by someone. Now if any of those elements are changed out why should the new artist not be paid? Why should parody artists not be paid? Why should karaoke artists not be paid? Why should alternative band players not be paid? Yeah you came out with a song and you played it but you have this idea that you own it and can stop others from playing it has to go. This notion of artistic exclusivity inhibits creativity. What about fanfiction writers? Should they not get paid? What about cosplay costume designers? What about amv video creators? Why are all these creative derivitive works not getting rewarded? Because some some greedy artist doesn’t want to give credit where it’s due and thinks they have a monopoly on an IDEA. Artists make a living on creating IDEAS and ideas are by their very nature spreadable and sharable. Ideas are not EXCLUSIVE but rather INCLUSIVE.

I already explained that. Create content, get GETS, earn more safecoin, and make profit.

Of course you can use your streaming model even if I don’t agree. Just don’t expect people to buy in or jump on board.

How so?

So create a library and make profit off the get requests and/or charge a small fee for access to said library. Again your whole argument is based on out moded business models.

Or you can stream a live performance and charge micropayments for every second of viewing.

1 Like

It indeed could. Dozens likely already exist and have resulted in bad press but not elimination or even total worldwide bans of anonymity/privacy tools.

Uhh, it’s my concern and of those who understand the balance of wealth. I’m entitled as my right as a free thinker with free speech. An arbitrarily chosen threshold into consensual maturity doesn’t justify predatory behavior no more than one can justify the consent of a child in an (in)appropriate setting. Technology and arithmetic still baffles a great number of people. Telling me that such infestive and draining behavior is acceptable by means of their own consent highlights a dark crevice in your character.

With cult like followings, those artists would need no persistent extraction model to achieve their financial goals. The cult would gust give when requested of them.

Infinite revenue conditions one to constant monetary output, few may understand the full implications. It weighs on one subconsciously every moment the person watches desired content. It forces out those whos financial situation has deteriorated but was once able to pay a one time fee.

You kidding me? Do you know what a typical server cost? The up and down stream connection necessary to satisfy your growing user base? Electricity and shelter? Power redundancy units? Maintenance cost for edge case tasks you cannot complete on your own? Backups hardware, malware breaches? LOL!!! You don’t think David et al would be so excited if they JUST decentralized the internet client server model… would they? They, like everyone else understand that the responsibility of the network infrastructure would be inherited by ALL. Not just some nuclear bunker ace admin group. So like I said, ALMOST pure profit!

Culture does lose significance in society as whole at sometime and may at some point experience a resurgence. The culture of Sparda and it’s pervading violent intolerance of weakness (throwing sickly babies out as societal rule) is an example of a culture that will not re surge into the forefront of society. Such foolishness only breeds disparity and self destruction.

I have to go with bindsite2k on this one. What in your mind separates the acquisition value of cookware and visual art. It’s narrative quality? It’s replay-ability? Does the art not in it’s original screening convey it’s existence completely? Must I repay for every moment of it’s repetitive rendition? What if It comes bundled into my channel based on my content preference? Will this add to the interactive tedium?

Stop it…money is for many not so black and white. Social, gender, and racial divides change the meaning of money for each individual. A person who has scrapped the little they have over the months is far different from one who could wipe their ass with that same amount. Yes the communication is clear, “I want to enjoy your service” but little does it say about what a person has gone through to earn it. The impoverished can spend moderate sums of money in short bursts to improve quality of life but would likely struggle or even fail to meet an ongoing demand.

I’m arguing it’s morality and necessity. Do what you will. Just saying if you shit on someones windshield they’ll among other things move on to another business.

Oh my ******* deity! Third world countries constitute at least 1/3 of the worlds population. You mean to have this new decentralized anonymous uncensorable network deny them information that could potentially lead them to your life extension, transhumanism goal? I feel as though I’m in correspondence with a reserve banker. What should we do next lucky? Infiltrate humanitarian groups then gradually inoculate them with compassionless capitalism?

Those who can afford to buy your art will. Those who cannot should not be deprived. You art believe or not is not values by you who cannot manifest its monetary worth but by those who gain interest and are willing to trade their resources for acquisition. Stifling human growth for the sake of capital is IMO a threat to intellectual evolution. Open source projects are the champions of informational and industrial growth. Those who hold tightly to one artistic expression in the hopes of infinite supplication have marked themselves as incapable or insecure about further monetary generative practices.

How do you propose we have freedom if it is hindered by survival? Even with infinite wealth a person is restricted by the economic construct. "You saying it should not be about X vs Y at this point seems contradictive.

You know, none of this really matters for us directly as of now. The “market” will reveal the truth soon enough.

Live streams are different as the experience is fleeting. There getting paid for ongoing activity.

What is “justifiable” is a completely subjective perspective. You are not free unless you are free to be both “good” and “bad”. Those whom one fears to offend are those who rule over one. Therefore if one is not allowed to be “offensive”, however that might be defined, then one is not free. You claim:

I call that double speak for the basis of all censorship and state control via an excuse for monitoring and thought control. Oh no! Offensive content! Oh no immoral content! Oh no terrorists, pedophiles and people from foreign religions and ideologies! Save us! Save us! Freedom of speech means exactly that. That yes one IS allowed to be predatory, that YES one is allowed to be offensive, that YES one is allowed to voice whatever it is they choose to express. Now whether one chooses to listen is another matter but that’s what we have filters and so forth for. Whether you find certain types of content or individuals unsavory isn’t the point. The onus is not on the other person to change in order to suit you. It’s you that are responsible for changing your behavior, your environment and reactions to suit your own sensibilities. Our whole society has been manipulated time and time again using fear and reaction tactics because we ASSUME that it’s the other person’s responsibility to change but it is not. It’s our own. We go off to whole wars based on the premise we are going to change a nations behavior and someone it is their responsibility to conform to our sensibilities. But it’s not. If we have an issue with another individual, a group or a whole country then it’s us that need to change. If someone is standing on a street corner blathering on about white power or about religious end of times nonsense it’s not for us to take away their ability to express just because it makes us uncomfortable. It’s for us to simply walk away or ignore them. And this is what needs to be reflected in code. If you see a user that you don’t want to hear from then just mute them and carry on with life. If there is a user that cheats and steals perhaps post on a board somewhere about your experience and then mute and ignore them so you don’t ever have to deal with them again.