4 ms·

>The problem that's trying to get solved is a major corporation using its power to unilaterally perform an adverse action against an individual that may or may

>The problem that's trying to get solved is a major corporation using its power to unilaterally perform an adverse action against an individual that may or may not be legal. I may be wrong here but if power is the problem and it becomes centralized in a system such as what you're proposing there will inevitably be similar, or worse, situations than the one being discussed. This solution would only expand their opportunity to exploit.

Kranar 5y ago
Yes there is a worse outcome from the use of this technology, there's a worse outcome for Disney. How do you see a system that automatically distributes royalties to authors without having to go through Disney as being worse for the authors or better for Disney? One worse outcome would be a bug in the system like the infamous DAO failure back in 2016. So definitely we need to consider potential problems, but I can't identify any problem in principle from this sytem.
- acdha 5y ago
  > How do you see a system that automatically distributes royalties to authors without having to go through Disney as being worse for the authors or better for Disney? Phrased like that, sure, it sounds great — but that's because it's begging the question of how you'd dictate terms to Disney. Once you start thinking about how that'd work in the real-world, it's obvious why it won't: no buyer needs a particular DAO and major sellers have no advantage to offering their content on a new system unless it delivers tangible benefits for them. That lack of demand and ease of replacement prevents DAOs from getting enough marketshare to be influential and, if it did, you'd either see them switch to a different platform. Think about what happened with Netflix, which had far more loyal users and much greater marketshare, and ask what reason you have to think this would be different. The fundamental problem is that this is not a technology problem. These are large companies with a massive revenue stream to protect and strong consumer demand. Optional systems which are struggling even to be cost-effective, much less compelling, are not going to disrupt that power imbalance.
  - Kranar 5y ago
    You're answer doesn't have anything to do with my question. The purpose of the DAO isn't for major sellers, it's for authors to pool together their intellectual property so they can derive royalties from it. >Think about what happened with Netflix What... exactly happened with Netflix? They're a 250 billion dollar company that's incredibly profitable.
    - acdha 5y ago
      > You're answer doesn't have anything to do with my question. > > The purpose of the DAO isn't for major sellers, it's for authors to pool together their intellectual property so they can derive royalties from it. The thread you jumped into was talking about a major seller choosing not to pay royalties. Putting your work into a DAO doesn't change that unless you think that that's the only place the major seller could offer that material for sale … which is unlikely. > >Think about what happened with Netflix > What... exactly happened with Netflix? They're a 250 billion dollar company that's incredibly profitable. How successful have they been at dictating terms to major players? The major rights-holders have been aggressively setting up their own services rather than giving that much control over distribution to a third-party. They went heavily into their own and foreign content to avoid being so dependent on continued availability of content from the major media companies. Netflix was paying them a ton of money, too, so now imagine what happens when the pitch is a DAO which is a bit player in the market and the alternative is simply continuing to offer your works on existing popular services which don't have that problem from the company's perspective. Now, maybe you're saying that if Foster had put his work on a DAO before Disney acquired everything he wouldn't have this trouble. That assumes that he would have found it profitable to do so instead of listing with a major publisher (i.e. someone solves the piracy and exposure problems — bootstrapping services like this is quite hard) but it's also assuming that everyone chooses to stay inside the constraints of an arbitrary system. I think it'd be more likely that, say, you'd just see the content posted on other services and if they're really playing hardball, a bunch of DMCA takedowns to anyone involved with the DAO to prevent residual sales there. There's no plausible path where, say, Amazon, Apple, etc. are going to fold their stores or that a non-trivial percentage of people are going to refuse to buy content which isn't available on the DAO of their choice.
- castlecrasher2 5y ago
  >How do you see a system that automatically distributes royalties to authors without having to go through Disney as being worse for the authors or better for Disney? Would that such a system worked exactly as intended on paper, I've never seen one that did.

Kranar 5y ago

Yes there is a worse outcome from the use of this technology, there's a worse outcome for Disney. How do you see a system that automatically distributes royalties to authors without having to go through Disney as being worse for the authors or better for Disney? One worse outcome would be a bug in the system like the infamous DAO failure back in 2016. So definitely we need to consider potential problems, but I can't identify any problem in principle from this sytem.

acdha 5y ago
> How do you see a system that automatically distributes royalties to authors without having to go through Disney as being worse for the authors or better for Disney? Phrased like that, sure, it sounds great — but that's because it's begging the question of how you'd dictate terms to Disney. Once you start thinking about how that'd work in the real-world, it's obvious why it won't: no buyer needs a particular DAO and major sellers have no advantage to offering their content on a new system unless it delivers tangible benefits for them. That lack of demand and ease of replacement prevents DAOs from getting enough marketshare to be influential and, if it did, you'd either see them switch to a different platform. Think about what happened with Netflix, which had far more loyal users and much greater marketshare, and ask what reason you have to think this would be different. The fundamental problem is that this is not a technology problem. These are large companies with a massive revenue stream to protect and strong consumer demand. Optional systems which are struggling even to be cost-effective, much less compelling, are not going to disrupt that power imbalance.
- Kranar 5y ago
  You're answer doesn't have anything to do with my question. The purpose of the DAO isn't for major sellers, it's for authors to pool together their intellectual property so they can derive royalties from it. >Think about what happened with Netflix What... exactly happened with Netflix? They're a 250 billion dollar company that's incredibly profitable.
  - acdha 5y ago
    > You're answer doesn't have anything to do with my question. > > The purpose of the DAO isn't for major sellers, it's for authors to pool together their intellectual property so they can derive royalties from it. The thread you jumped into was talking about a major seller choosing not to pay royalties. Putting your work into a DAO doesn't change that unless you think that that's the only place the major seller could offer that material for sale … which is unlikely. > >Think about what happened with Netflix > What... exactly happened with Netflix? They're a 250 billion dollar company that's incredibly profitable. How successful have they been at dictating terms to major players? The major rights-holders have been aggressively setting up their own services rather than giving that much control over distribution to a third-party. They went heavily into their own and foreign content to avoid being so dependent on continued availability of content from the major media companies. Netflix was paying them a ton of money, too, so now imagine what happens when the pitch is a DAO which is a bit player in the market and the alternative is simply continuing to offer your works on existing popular services which don't have that problem from the company's perspective. Now, maybe you're saying that if Foster had put his work on a DAO before Disney acquired everything he wouldn't have this trouble. That assumes that he would have found it profitable to do so instead of listing with a major publisher (i.e. someone solves the piracy and exposure problems — bootstrapping services like this is quite hard) but it's also assuming that everyone chooses to stay inside the constraints of an arbitrary system. I think it'd be more likely that, say, you'd just see the content posted on other services and if they're really playing hardball, a bunch of DMCA takedowns to anyone involved with the DAO to prevent residual sales there. There's no plausible path where, say, Amazon, Apple, etc. are going to fold their stores or that a non-trivial percentage of people are going to refuse to buy content which isn't available on the DAO of their choice.
castlecrasher2 5y ago
>How do you see a system that automatically distributes royalties to authors without having to go through Disney as being worse for the authors or better for Disney? Would that such a system worked exactly as intended on paper, I've never seen one that did.