I have not received a message from Cob in some time and I see he has been posting on here, so I figured I'd get some feedback from you guys and what you think.
My concerns with this current model is that the DAC and Peertracks seems to be following an outdated model. That is a system where people buy music. People buying music online has begun to fall: http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobile/5855162/digital-music-sales-decrease-for-first-time-in-2013
I attribute this mostly due to the rise in streaming and the popularity of that model. But even then that is a centralized model that has treated artists unfairly due to the holding of intellectual property by large publishing companies, such as spotify distributing the revenues at different rates for artists in bigger labels.
This concept has the ability to change the game in that regard. Not only could we make a platform where every artist is paid at the same rate for the same merit but we could do it without advertising and therefore attract millions of listeners. Essentially, we should be looking at a platform that allows for people to invest in artists who distribute their music for free and then have the DAC protocol pay people according to how popular the artists are in the network. Let's be real here. Young people today buy music less and less and prefer to torrent it. However torrenting takes time and carries legal problems. If we can get this out of the way, we've stumbled on a gold mine. In addition, I think I've found a method in some old technology that would allow us to stream the music or download it. It's called Peercasting and functions like a P2P TCP server (if you're not a techie, that's basically the protocol that your Youtube videos use). This could further be enacted by having people sign off on whether a certain packet of data was distributed.
Another thing I've seen a lot of people bring up that you haven't addressed is the problem of people copying other people's music on the DAC and just taking it and distributing it. There's no way to get around that in the modern day and age, so why not build a protocol around the assumptions and encourage it in a way that allows artists and shareholders to profit? We could do this by creating a P2P database in the DAC protocol that would create audio fingerprints for songs uploaded and for each upload check the database to make sure it's not replicated. There are ways to do this on a decentralized, P2P basis.
I like the idea of artistcoins. I did not like them at first, but I have bought onto the concept so to say. However, I'm not sure there is a truly clear cut mechanism for how they would work. I would propose a mechanism in the frame that I have whereby holders of artistcoins hold the responsibility of distributing music over the network (they are the only ones allowed to seed). An artistcoin would then function as a key allowing people to distribute a set chunk of data per block processed and would then gather transaction fees per block according to how many artistcoins they have for that song/album.
In addition there is something that could be utilized that would really draw artists in. The ability for us to process where certain people are transacting from allows us to collect ip Addresses. If we utilize this we can help artists create a geographical map of where they should tour based upon total streams from different addresses. This essentially functions like an enterprise planning tool and it would bring many artists into the network.
Does anybody think this is a better system? Does anyone have any criticism they would like to levy at this? I want this to work and I just don't see it working on the current platform it is heading in.