Race to the bottom

The price of music is £0. The price of movies is £0. The price of software is £0


The price of music is £0. The price of movies is £0. The price of software is £0

This is really bad because it means artists cannot get compensated for their work.

I'd like to hear ideas how to improve this state of affairs and normalise paying for music, movies and software.


投票 (可选) (别通知) (可选)





// £0 food, £0 medicine, £0 transportation

Bicycles and elevators (lifts) are close to £0 transportation. The other things may take a while.

// whereby everybody who you need to interact with is automatically placed into your life //

But how would one know, who one need to interact with in life? I had one similar idea: One City.

    : Mindey
    :  -- 
    :  -- 





£0 food, £0 medicine, £0 transportation

Will never happen. But I'm open for ideas that make commodities of food, medicine and transportation.

Secretly think transportation is a waste of human effort and people should just live in well managed communities whereby everybody who you need to interact with is automatically placed into your life.


Interesting question. Where does the money come from? For the music, the money comes from subscriptions and/or user data used to sell marketing. In the case of software is the same. I would speculate that these companies are exclusively selling advertising...





Nobody should want to become commodity.

Commodity is good because it makes things cheap it just has a knock on effect of making people poor.

It's disintermediation. And it's harmful.

I like the idea of microtransactions to pay for the media we consume. I think that's what your idea is getting at.

    : transiency
    :  -- 
    :  -- 


有人会说这是一个好趋势-趋向富裕-那么下一步是什么? £0食物,£0医药,£0运输...您不喜欢£0音乐吗?有人会说,由于某些事情已经自动化,那些仍在制造它们并希望得到报酬的人应该去找其他事情去做。最底层的问题是零边际成本,当额外的副本成本接近零时,初始副本的制作成本很高。因此,问题的最底层可能是-我们如何支付艺术家,音乐家,软件开发人员等的初始副本,然后以匿名方式进行传播? (我们确实想要隐私)

如果我们只能让所有人携带加密密钥,则构成已确定属于活着的人类的一组公共密钥的 %% S %% ,并且如果这些密钥可以衍生出回放,视图或用途的签名,则这些签名应与该集合中的密钥,但不能解析为该集合中的任何特定公共密钥,那么-我们所有人都可以对我们的每个回放进行签名,识别出人类的使用方式,而无需解决任何验证码,并且不会损害我们的隐私权,以及这可能有助于将适当的信用额度提供给提供商。但是,当涉及初始副本的创建者时,具有从艺术品或工程作品的特征集生成的唯一“艺术品签名”(就像生物签名),可能会解决跟踪唯一性的问题。实际上,这样的艺术品签名可能是分层的,因为其他人可以从其他人那里获得作品,并且可以比专利服务更好。

Some would say this is a good trend -- towards the abundance -- so what's next? £0 food, £0 medicine, £0 transportation... Don't you enjoy £0 music? Some would say, cause certain things had been automated, those people who still make them and expect to be paid, should go find other things to do. The problem at the bottom is zero marginal cost, when an extra copy costs close to zero, and the initial copy costs a lot to make. So, the bottom of the question may be -- how do we pay to the artists, musicians, software developers, etc. for the initial copy, that is then spread anonymously? (we do want privacy)

If we could only have all people carry cryptographic keys, forming a set %%S%% of public keys that are verified to belong to living humans, and if those keys could derive signatures of playbacks or views or uses, that are verifyably signed with a key from that set, but cannot be resolved to any particular public key from that set, then -- we could all be signing each of our playback, identifying human use, without the need to solve any captchas and without compromising our privacy, and this could be helpful in giving appropriate credit to the providers. However, when it comes to creators of the initial copy, having a unique "artwork signature" (think like a biosignature) generated from the feature-sets of works of art or engineering, may solve the problem of tracking uniqueness. In fact, such artwork signatures could be hierarchical, as other people derive work from other people, and may serve better than patents.

    : chronological
    :  -- 
    :  -- 

Mindey, 💤