BitShares Forum
Other => Graveyard => Muse/SoundDAC => Topic started by: tipon on April 23, 2014, 02:12:23 am
-
Hi, I'm new with bitshares and i been reading the messages in these forum, i have this question:
Is bitshares music about creating artificial scarcity?
Many thinkers support the idea of what is called "abundance logic" of internet , this means, that things can be replicated without costs and this is consequence of the structure of the distributed net and its topography.
Urrutia says that many companies are trying to create artificial scarcity but this is negative for the "abundance logic" .
Instead of going against the logic of abundance we should promote it . Create technological infraestructures that promote it.
What do you think about this?
Dont you think bitshares music and a lot of development in crypto/bitcoin stuff is about creating artificial scarcity and this is in escense something bad for the interests of humanity ( logic of abundance) ?
-
It's also about convenience and a new type of marketplace for artists to sell shares in their music. (Think Centralized website with lots of music like iTunes or pandora and a new stock exchange like Nasdaq for music).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
"Urrutia says that many companies are trying to create artificial scarcity..."
Who or what is an "Urrutia"?
-
I have no idea how bitshares music is encouraging scarcity, to the contrary I think the idea is that it frees artists to let their fans copy and share music ss much ss possible
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
http://p2pfoundation.net/Abundance_Logic
"Urrutia says that many companies are trying to create artificial scarcity..."
Who or what is an "Urrutia"?
-
In order to sell you need to limitate the access to the music.
Bitshare music is based on a mechanism that limitates the number of copies that can be made.
Its creating artificial scarcity!
I have no idea how bitshares music is encouraging scarcity, to the contrary I think the idea is that it frees artists to let their fans copy and share music ss much ss possible
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
In order to sell you need to limitate the access to the music.
Bitshare music is based on a mechanism that limitates the number of copies that can be made.
Its creating artificial scarcity!
I have no idea how bitshares music is encouraging scarcity, to the contrary I think the idea is that it frees artists to let their fans copy and share music ss much ss possible
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
But the whole point is that it's not! Unless I misunderstood their business model... that's why it is so innovative
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
We need to be carefull with innovation and technological development. They both are not neutral.
We need to analyze if these innovations are good for society. Where do we want to go?
Which kind of consequences are gonna have these developments?
I think bitshares music promote scarcity and as consequence its very bad for the interest of humanity.
-
Tipon you are the next bytemaster!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I disagree with the thinker who said that. Doesn't make any sense unless you're looking at a larger economic system or industry. You may want to take a basic Economics course.
When I think of artificial scarcity, something like DeBeers diamonds come to mind. They have such a monopoly over a glassy rock (which is not all that uncommon, just occurring in certain pockets they have control over). Diamonds should be worth peanuts, but that company instead has created artificial scarcity and marketed diamonds as being rare.
Bitshares Music will fill a niche that no one has touched yet. In this way, maybe it will make things a little LESS scarce (more accessible). Did you think iTunes was creating artificial scarcity? Far from it; I think iTunes opened up a simpler/cheaper access to music that wasn't there previously. And Apple made money through that disruptive business model. That's what we have here also; there is no scarcity being created with the DACs, only broader access to opportunities. That can be profitable and noble at the same time.
-
We need to be carefull with innovation and technological development. They both are not neutral.
We need to analyze if these innovations are good for society. Where do we want to go?
Which kind of consequences are gonna have these developments?
I think bitshares music promote scarcity and as consequence its very bad for the interest of humanity.
You still haven't explained your point and you're assuming bitshares music works by selling copies of songs. Please do a more thorough argument because I still disagree.
-
There is not really artificial scarcity as media on the internet can be easily copied and pirated.
I believe the main Bitshares Music DAC is based on the idea that fans want to support & fairly reward their favourite artists for their work but currently it is too expensive (Eg. Itunes) to pay for all the media we consume.
However this DAC goes beyond just introducing micro-payments to the space, but also rewards fans for helping to promote artists and performers - not just big record labels.
As a result, many, many more artists & unique voices, especially with small fan bases and in poorer countries will be supported, encouraged & promoted which I personally think will make humanity more rich and diverse.
-
If we look beyond music,
Even the best media (eg. blockbuster movies) need adverts, posters, trailers & press interviews so that the average 'man in the street' knows they exist.
Right now only big companies (& their shareholders) have the funding & are incentivized to do this. As a result, most of humanity is living in a world where the main information they receive is mostly propaganda controlled by a few rich entities and truth is often relegated to the fringe.
I believe these kind of platforms, that Bitshares is pioneering, can level the playing field, helping communities reward & promote the truthtellers, potentially giving the best of them the funding and reach to have voices loud enough to compete with the MSM & thereby also reach the ears of the average 'man in the street' too.
What kind of a positive effect could that eventually have on humanity?
-
Side music question: do you think shareholders will get screwed by pump and dump schemes in BTS music? Or will there be great benefit to 'hold' songs long term?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
To be honest, I haven't yet taken the time fully understand the incentive structure of BitShares Music; I do think the bitshares music and bitshares insurance DACs are somewhat complex and not immediately as intuitive as something like a bitshares Lotto.
Although the data that makes up a music file is not any more scarce than storing and transmitting any other data and can easily be copied, the time and attention of the listener is scarce.
My understanding is that you are rewarding or paying people who are able to bring good music to the attention of the listener who will enjoy it. Essentially you will pay me money if I am great at bringing great music to your attention so you don't have to wade through a bunch of crap because your time and attention is valuable to you.
I don't think the goal is to restrict access to the music like most systems such as itunes do today.
-
Musicians will pay back shareholders who supported them from deals where it is "less unethical" to create scarcity, like selling it to a company to use in a commercial. Or give signed T-shirts to the top 500 donors like to kickstart an album.
This is the sustainable route. Same stuff as nowadays only the middleman's cut is minimized instead of maximized at every point. Of course musicians will try to pump, that's why it'll be fun.
BTW, I have no idea if this is actually what the Music guys are doing. I'm interested if they thought of something other than selling songs for cases when you can only obtain radio streaming license on music in the short term.
-
Imagine if youtube had a value system to rank how good videos are and whenever you watched a video you could say if it is crappy and ranked too high or if it is a great video that people will really like and is ranked too low. And then if you predict correctly and a video that you "upvote" becomes more popular or a video that you "downvote" continues to be less popular and is downvoted by others, then you get paid. If you pump a crappy video, others will watch it and get pissed off for having their time wasted and downvote it and then you lose money because you bet on a losing horse.
I think the model is something along those lines.
-
Side music question: do you think shareholders will get screwed by pump and dump schemes in BTS music? Or will there be great benefit to 'hold' songs long term?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A song will have a very short product life cycle. It's price should reflect where it is in that life-cycle so not really pump & dump.
(http://blog.deonbotha.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2011/09/dffc0-productlifecycle.gif)
Imagine if youtube had a value system to rank how good videos are and whenever you watched a video you could say if it is crappy and ranked too high or if it is a great video that people will really like and is ranked too low. And then if you predict correctly and a video that you "upvote" becomes more popular or a video that you "downvote" continues to be less popular and is downvoted by others, then you get paid. If you pump a crappy video, others will watch it and get pissed off for having their time wasted and downvote it and then you lose money because you bet on a losing horse.
I think the model is something along those lines.
Some Youtube videos generate $ thousands of ad revenue. I think it would be nice if a publisher could sell shares in their videos so you can get a % of their ad revenue.
---
I still think the big money will be made from people who partner with existing big record labels, which is not particularly positive for humanity but potentially very profitable $$$$ https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4017.0
-
We need to be carefull with innovation and technological development. They both are not neutral.
We need to analyze if these innovations are good for society. Where do we want to go?
Which kind of consequences are gonna have these developments?
I think bitshares music promote scarcity and as consequence its very bad for the interest of humanity.
In my vision for BSM it would promote copying of the song for free and no charge and then provide a means to tie the value of a share in the song to the popularity of the song. Popular songs are indeed naturally scarce as are talented artists. I thus want to encourage the discovery and sharing of songs while allowing people to profit from the discovery of quality artists and music.
So the goal is to incentivize discovery of scarce goods and thus make them more abundant *without* relying on force or coersion that is represented by copyright.
BSM as it is being produced by Eddie is a hybrid model, they are selling downloads, but sharing the revenue from the downloads with the shareholders. Thus there is no artificial scarcity.
-
Some Youtube videos generate $ thousands of ad revenue. I think it would be nice if a publisher could sell shares in their videos so you can get a % of their ad revenue.
This is a VERY interesting idea!
-
Some Youtube videos generate $ thousands of ad revenue. I think it would be nice if a publisher could sell shares in their videos so you can get a % of their ad revenue.
This is a VERY interesting idea!
SharesTube.com
Or
SharesTube.p2p
:)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
just ShareTube
-
just ShareTube
+ 1 ;)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Some Youtube videos generate $ thousands of ad revenue. I think it would be nice if a publisher could sell shares in their videos so you can get a % of their ad revenue.
This is a VERY interesting idea!
Thanks :)
-
Back to OP's main point briefly: he seems to be saying that because we can copy a song and distribute it ad infinitum, that the song is abundant. That somehow an item's abundance is related to how many copies of it exist. But this is really a form of artificial abundance, right? In an important sense, songs are actually scarce, because it's not trivial to produce a good song. A song is a special type of good that can fall prey to artificial abundance, which really screws with the incentives to produce songs.
This is the problem that Bitshares Music is trying to solve: the illusion of abundance that the Internet produces has caused incentive problems for musicians. Record labels tried to solve the incentive problem by legislating scarcity, and that approach has mostly turned out to be a huge failure. Bitshares Music is just a new approach to the incentive problem, one which I suspect may turn out to be a bit more successful. :)
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
-
What Eddie and I are building is a website where you can listen to music for free, but if you want to have a copy of the mp3, you must pay.
Free to stream, pay to download.
If you want to buy shares of a song, you must also pay. You will then get rewarded IF that song generates any sales.
Here, let me "leak" a section of the white paper. Please ignore the "Zenith Music Exchange" name since all our terminology is being revamped.
And let me add to this following section that there is a third type of listener. The ones that currently torrent because $0.99 is just a little bit to pricy for them. They would consider paying for a song if it were priced at say, $0.80.
anyway Here is the paste:
3.0 Incentives and advantages
The current economic model for buying music gives the listener two choices: one free, and one paying. People getting their music for free are the majority. People that pay for music do so for a variety of reasons but none of them involve self-interest. Our new model favours everyone's self-interests. Unlike the current one where artists hesitate before putting their music online for fear of file sharing / pirating, the Zenith Music Exchange now makes it profitable for the artist to upload and share everything he has.
What Zenith Music Exchange offers is to take the majority of people that normally just torrent music and turn them into music buyers. How so? By switching the incentives around. Buying music through the blockchain is now an action that promotes self-interest. If a user likes a song so much that he is willing to download it with the varying levels of hassle it entails (trojans / malware / viruses and the time required to find the files online), he most likely sees the value of that song. By buying a BitShare of that song directly from our website, he is invested in the song’s success. Every time the song is played or purchased, the new BitShareholder now sees the value of his portfolio rise and can cash out at any time!
A buyer can purchase a BitShare of a song, compensating the band in the process, for the sole reason that he will make money off it in the future. BitShares Music is harnessing the power of greed and putting it at the service of good. As for people already paying for their music, they will keep doing so, but will now get compensated financially for it. Currently, their good dead goes unrewarded. We personally like the idea of rewarding and incentivizing good, ethical and moral choices.
-
What Eddie and I are building is a website where you can listen to music for free, but if you want to have a copy of the mp3, you must pay.
Free to stream, pay to download.
If you want to buy shares of a song, you must also pay. You will then get rewarded IF that song generates any sales.
Here, let me "leak" a section of the white paper. Please ignore the "Zenith Music Exchange" name since all our terminology is being revamped.
And let me add to this following section that there is a third type of listener. The ones that currently torrent because $0.99 is just a little bit to pricy for them. They would consider paying for a song if it were priced at say, $0.80.
anyway Here is the paste:
3.0 Incentives and advantages
The current economic model for buying music gives the listener two choices: one free, and one paying. People getting their music for free are the majority. People that pay for music do so for a variety of reasons but none of them involve self-interest. Our new model favours everyone's self-interests. Unlike the current one where artists hesitate before putting their music online for fear of file sharing / pirating, the Zenith Music Exchange now makes it profitable for the artist to upload and share everything he has.
What Zenith Music Exchange offers is to take the majority of people that normally just torrent music and turn them into music buyers. How so? By switching the incentives around. Buying music through the blockchain is now an action that promotes self-interest. If a user likes a song so much that he is willing to download it with the varying levels of hassle it entails (trojans / malware / viruses and the time required to find the files online), he most likely sees the value of that song. By buying a BitShare of that song directly from our website, he is invested in the song’s success. Every time the song is played or purchased, the new BitShareholder now sees the value of his portfolio rise and can cash out at any time!
A buyer can purchase a BitShare of a song, compensating the band in the process, for the sole reason that he will make money off it in the future. BitShares Music is harnessing the power of greed and putting it at the service of good. As for people already paying for their music, they will keep doing so, but will now get compensated financially for it. Currently, their good dead goes unrewarded. We personally like the idea of rewarding and incentivizing good, ethical and moral choices.
How do AGS/ PTS share allocations come into play?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yes, i was asumming it involves selling songs, but not only selling songs, its more trading and making bussiness with music.
In order to sell or trade something that is digital ( music, art, books ,software, etc) you need to be able to limit the number of copies.
You can do this using blockchain technologies and bitshares music , for example you can create a limited run of a few copies of an album then you can assign each album
a special key and then you encode that in the blockchain.
In this way you can have these digital albums or songs that always stay an exact number of copies that can be traded.
This is basically creating artificial scarcity
We need to be carefull with innovation and technological development. They both are not neutral.
We need to analyze if these innovations are good for society. Where do we want to go?
Which kind of consequences are gonna have these developments?
I think bitshares music promote scarcity and as consequence its very bad for the interest of humanity.
You still haven't explained your point and you're assuming bitshares music works by selling copies of songs. Please do a more thorough argument because I still disagree.
-
I think you're imagining song download ability as tokens you can trade around and as the resource that is limited. If you trade shares in the songs future sales (potentially infinite sales) you are creating "artificial scarcity" in the sense that there is exactly one "song's future revenue" which you split up proportionally among shareholders.
-
cob, please point me to where I can read any information about your project. Yeah, I could search, but that would involve searching :)
Also, how has this whole music thing emerged as anything separate from this idea -- where I have now posted a reply? :
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1053.msg63537#msg63537
-
If something is abundant it is not unique, and some things are essentially unique, like identity. What things are essentially unique? Can we do without essentially unique things, and if not, which kinds of essentially unique things are critical? /philosophy mode
-
Remind me what hinges on the question of what is unique? :P
-
A buyer can purchase a BitShare of a song, compensating the band in the process, for the sole reason that he will make money off it in the future.
I'm not following this point. If someone buys a song, do they also get shares in the artist?
I understand purchasing artist coins to make money off them in the future, but my understanding is that purchasing a download comes with no shareholding.