Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [decentralization] Social pressure for tipping

Expand Messages
  • Justin Chapweske
    Your system sounds very interesting. My only worry is that it makes it very easy for legislation to be imposed that states that ALL unsigned music is
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 4 6:17 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Your system sounds very interesting. My only worry is that it makes it
      very easy for legislation to be imposed that states that ALL unsigned
      music is illegal.....although that's where we're already going in the DVD
      space :( :( :( :(

      --
      Justin Chapweske, Lead Swarmcast Developer, OpenCola Inc.
      http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/swarmcast/
    • Eric M. Hopper
      I posted this in reply to the Moneyflow article on Advogato (http://www.advogato.org), but I though it was also relevant here. I propose a system by which
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 4 11:17 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        I posted this in reply to the 'Moneyflow' article on Advogato
        (http://www.advogato.org), but I though it was also relevant here.

        I propose a system by which you can by copies of music signed to you by
        the author. This signature is easily verified, and not hard to remove.
        It will be next to impossible to seperate the artist's signature from
        the information that you are the owner.

        You can then make it a crime to give away signed copies of a work, and
        you are traceable through the signature on the work. You can, of
        course, give away and trade unsigned copies, but there will be a social
        stigma attached.

        One way help along the social stigma aspect is to make it possible for
        someone to provide verification that they have a signed copy by giving
        someone an unsigned version, and a token that can be used to verif that
        they have a signature. You could even make this process of verification
        an automatic feature of a P2P system. This would permit people who have
        signed copies easily share their entire collection in an unsigned
        format. It would add a certain potlach aspect to the whole thing.

        All this would rely on easy support by the P2P infrastructure, but it
        wouldn't require that technology be crippled. Owning a non-comforming
        P2P peer would simply mean that it would be hard for you to participate
        in the social fabric.

        You would still have warez communities, and people would still get stuff
        from them, but they would have a vague, socially reinforced feeling that
        they were somehow cheating someone out of something.

        It would also allow for a much more natural degredation of copyright
        rights. People would eventually just feel that the work was really old
        or the creator wasn't around, and so wouldn't feel guilty about having
        unsigned copies. Though signed copies may then start being treated with
        a great deal of respect and awe. Especially if they couldn't be
        obtained because the work was no longer 'published'.

        You could even have another level of 'personally signed' copy. This
        would be a copy an artist directly gave to someone, proving the person
        had some sort of personal interaction with the artist. If the artist
        abused this and used the 'personal' signature for impersonal
        transactions, the signature would be devalued.

        This is a little more freeform than the streetperformer protocol (as
        described in a paper by Bruce Schneier of Counterpane), and doesn't have
        as much of a builtin guarantee for the artist. It also covers a wider
        range of artist popularity than the streetperformer protocol. The
        streetperformer protocol only works for artists that are already well
        known. The two could be combined easily.

        Have fun (if at all possible),
        --
        The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
        be properly armed. -- Alexander Hamilton
        -- Eric Hopper (hopper@... http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper) --
      • Eric M. Hopper
        ... The only defense against that is pointed out how unenforceable it is. I m fairly worried that the middlemen are going to start pushing legislators so hard
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 4 12:26 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 02:17:44PM +0000, Justin Chapweske wrote:
          > Your system sounds very interesting. My only worry is that it makes
          > it very easy for legislation to be imposed that states that ALL
          > unsigned music is illegal.....although that's where we're already
          > going in the DVD space :( :( :( :(

          The only defense against that is pointed out how unenforceable
          it is. I'm fairly worried that the middlemen are going to start pushing
          legislators so hard we'll end up with a war on drugs style war against
          copyright infringement.

          The only defense against this is pointing out how much of a pain
          they're creating, and pointing out possible solutions that are much more
          workable form a law enforcement perspective.

          The system I propose doesn't _require_ the illegalization of
          sharing signed music that's not owned by you. It's merely that this is
          actually somewhat enforceable if it were illegal. It would still be
          considered socially questionable activity.

          Have fun (if at all possible),
          --
          The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
          be properly armed. -- Alexander Hamilton
          -- Eric Hopper (hopper@... http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper) --
        • Clay Shirky
          ... I think this runs aground on two rocks: First, most musicians are talentless hacks (though there s nothing special about music in this regard -- most
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 4 2:23 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            > I propose a system by which you can by copies of music signed to you
            > by the author. This signature is easily verified, and not hard to
            > remove. It will be next to impossible to seperate the artist's
            > signature from the information that you are the owner.

            I think this runs aground on two rocks:

            First, most musicians are talentless hacks (though there's nothing
            special about music in this regard -- most actors, writers, composers,
            etc are talentless hacks as well, as per Sturgeon's Law.) There is no
            long-term viability in a system that brings many artists together with
            many listeners, without giving us, the hapless listener, some layer or
            other method of deflecting the unwanted attention of people whose
            music we don't like.

            Since most people dislike most music, muscians looking for listeners
            and listeners looking for music creates an N^2 problem (well, really
            an M^L problem, but still...), so a middleman will always be necessary
            to handle the bottleneck of the listeners' attention span, even if all
            the physical bottlenecks disappear.

            Second, this assumes music should continue to be sold as a product,
            instead of a service. When perfect digital copies have come to other
            industries -- news, financial data, software, pornography -- things
            that in the offline world have been treated as products, because they
            are tied to physical delivery, become services in the online world.

            The difficulties in preserving music's "product-hood" can be seen most
            clearly in the DRM schemes being bruited, which amount to an attempt
            to bring all the inconvenience of the real world to digitial data, and
            then to attempt to convince users that they should be willing to pay
            the same for an online song as for a CD single, because its costing
            them so much to make things inconvenient.

            -clay
          • Jim Carrico
            hi folks I ve been following this list with interest for a few months, and though this is my first post here, I ve been involved in parallel conversations with
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 4 3:24 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              hi folks

              I've been following this list with interest for a few months, and though
              this is my first post here, I've been involved in parallel conversations
              with some of the regulars over the same period. I also accosted a few of
              you at the o'reilly p2p con, soliciting critiques of some of the ideas I'm
              about to relate.

              I run a site called potlatch.net through which I've been propagandizing
              the idea of a decentralized gift economy. This seems to be a logical
              requirement of any network in which distribution of digital products is
              radically de-coupled from any payment mechanism. The question of how to
              'incentivise' creators leads to two opposing perspectives - either
              criminalize these networks (or develop technology which achieves a similar
              effect) OR admit that any payment within this environment is
              discretionary, and develop strategies that will encourage such payments.
              These can be summarized as the "stick" and the "carrot" approaches.

              A decentralized payment system needs a mechanism, voluntary or otherwise.
              To this end I've been playing around with the concept of digitally signed
              XML promissory notes, aggregated by a third party. (Hi Todd!) I've
              sketched up a mechanism of how this might function, along with an
              explanation of why I think we need it, and a brief overview of possible
              failings of such a system - the first draft of this proposed "potlatch
              protocol" is at http://www.potlatch.net/protocol.01.html (abstract: A
              potlatch is a gift festival, and an economic system based on abundance,
              gift, and reputation. The potlatch protocol describes a decentralized
              peer-to-peer micropayment system based on digitally signed XML promissory
              notes, aggregated for settlement on an open market. It provides an
              economic framework that builds upon the "infinite supply" of digital
              products rather than opposing it, and argues that such a framework is both
              appropriate and necessary.)

              The goal is to create a basic method that is capable of creating new
              markets in the p2p space, without having to rely on any proprietary tools
              or centralized agencies. It is my hope that this protocol, or something
              like it, will be adopted by the various viral distribution networks that
              are currently under development. The developers of Espra, a GUI client for
              Freenet, are looking closely at incorporating such a system into the core
              app.

              Anyone care to have a stab at why this won't work?

              Note: even if Napster manages to get their subscription service up before
              they are shredded by their adversaries, it will have to be admitted that
              anyone who signs up is doing so by choice, not necessity, given the many
              other sources of free music that are already available. I want the
              creators of the music I enjoy to be happy and well-fed, so they can make
              more music - my problem with an RIAA-approved subscription system is that
              it is unlikely that artists will see much of that money.

              I can't see pay-per-play or pay-per-download being accepted,at first,
              unless these payments are optional, and given the degree to which the
              environment is poisoned against the percieved greed of the major labels, I
              don't think many people will choose to pay unless they are damn sure the
              money is going directly to the artists. How do producers/labels/management
              get paid in this scenario? The same way they do now, by providing
              services: the only difference is that the artists would pay their support
              staff, rather than the other way round.

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
              http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
            • Nick Lothian
              ... I know we don t need any more examples of the lack of vision of most of the music industry, but here s one anyway: Has anyone seen cassette tape prices
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 4 3:59 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                > The difficulties in preserving music's "product-hood" can be seen most
                > clearly in the DRM schemes being bruited, which amount to an attempt
                > to bring all the inconvenience of the real world to digitial data, and
                > then to attempt to convince users that they should be willing to pay
                > the same for an online song as for a CD single, because its costing
                > them so much to make things inconvenient.
                >

                I know we don't need any more examples of the lack of vision of most of the
                music industry, but here's one anyway:

                Has anyone seen cassette tape prices lately? You can buy (here, in
                Australia) Top 40 albums on cassette for less that $10 (= US$6). Compare
                that to a CD album (= $25 Australian). It sure makes me wonder... if an
                album with say 6 songs can be sold for less that $2 per song, just because
                it is on a different medium, why can't songs be sold for less than that in
                digital format? After all, the production costs and quality are both less
                than cassettes. If I could get a legal 64mbs MP3 for 50 cents, I'd do it.

                (Yes, I know this means micropayments. However, I wouldn't pay $5 a month
                for unlimited music - after all, most of it I'm not going to like.)

                Nick
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.