Music/Data App Store

HellRazorHellRazor BerlinMember Posts: 99 ✭✭
Hey Guys,
what do you think of a music store in Ethereum? A store where artists can directly sell their music and receive the money directly all over the Ethereum network. It would use swarm as the distribution system and Ethereum as the payment system. One thing I was wondering is if it makes even sense to make a pay per download system or if a "get enough people to pay for it and then unlock it" system is more appropriate? I mean as far as I understood from the Gavin Wood Meetup talk swarm is anonymous and everybody can share music and other data for free anyway, so the pay per download model becomes obsolete as all data once it is out there is available for free? The same concept of paying for music I think also applies for any data that can be digitalized? So is the "get enough people to pay for it and then unlock it" system kind of the future of paying for digital information?

Comments

  • figmentfigment Member Posts: 7
    Not sure about this... but it could work. People are still prepared to pay for quality music files, just that most people expect it for free. Music as a service could work, small amount for hearing it and bigger for downloading, like Vimeo and others do for film.
  • IspeedtooIspeedtoo Member Posts: 7
    There has to a method to pay on top on the transaction cost.
  • JasperJasper Eindhoven, the NetherlandsMember Posts: 514 ✭✭✭
    Its a good idea. Tricky to figure out how to ensure people dont upload stuff they do not own, that the right people are being released.

    Note that by releasing the checksum(cryptographic commitment) you can prove you had some data at some time by putting it on the blockchain. If you do that before releasing the music, no-one else could. However, anyone could change a single unimportant bit and pretend to have created it. For this reason the 'holy grail' for publishing DAOs seems to be to figure out whether things are derivatives of each other.

    A simpler route is just trying to 'approve' music creators, keeping bad agents out, and 'manually' detecting bad actors. (timestamping is still recommended in just incase someone figures out the above) However, this has a higher threshhold for people to start contributing.

    If you want it to be a DAO, and possibly in order for musicians to trust it, you also sort-of need to distribute the 'approving authority'.

    Income is another issue, there is advertising, donations, and payment. The last one could be for the music itself, or removing the advertisements. However, it cannot really be enforced, well, i hope... i dont really like DRM.
  • IspeedtooIspeedtoo Member Posts: 7
    Jasper said:

    Its a good idea. Tricky to figure out how to ensure people dont upload stuff they do not own, that the right people are being released.

    Note that by releasing the checksum(cryptographic commitment) you can prove you had some data at some time by putting it on the blockchain. If you do that before releasing the music, no-one else could. However, anyone could change a single unimportant bit and pretend to have created it. For this reason the 'holy grail' for publishing DAOs seems to be to figure out whether things are derivatives of each other.

    A simpler route is just trying to 'approve' music creators, keeping bad agents out, and 'manually' detecting bad actors. (timestamping is still recommended in just incase someone figures out the above) However, this has a higher threshhold for people to start contributing.

    If you want it to be a DAO, and possibly in order for musicians to trust it, you also sort-of need to distribute the 'approving authority'.

    Income is another issue, there is advertising, donations, and payment. The last one could be for the music itself, or removing the advertisements. However, it cannot really be enforced, well, i hope... i dont really like DRM.

    I see this as a function of the escrow agent!

  • JasperJasper Eindhoven, the NetherlandsMember Posts: 514 ✭✭✭
    Please dont quote the entirety of another post that is right up there.

    I noticed that the two approaches can overlap a bit. In the simpler approach, you 'vet' users, and some users starts just copying stuff from another user. You'd remove him from the system. I.e. you checked that he trivially 'derived' from another user. In the more complex system, you have a reputation system, and which basically vets people in a more complicated fashion to check whether things are 'derived' from each other. But in principle the reputation system could also cover the people submitting content.

    The word 'derive' is possibly a bit vague. It could mean 1) it takes minimal work to create one from the other 2) it is inspired from another. The latter is pretty unclear.

    Btw, perhaps you should at the DOUG idea, hmm, not sure where to find the best text to represent it. Anyway, it provides a mechanism to change things afterward, with some arbitrary rule that (dis)allows it. For instance you could have a vote. This would allow you to change the you approach.
Sign In or Register to comment.