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.
沒有子分類。
+[問題]
+[想法]
+[項目]
有人會說這是一個好趨勢-趨向富裕-那麼下一步是什麼？ £0食物，£0醫藥，£0運輸...您不喜歡£0音樂嗎？有人會說，由於某些事情已經自動化，那些仍在製造它們並希望得到報酬的人應該去找其他事情去做。最底層的問題是零邊際成本，當額外的副本成本接近零時，初始副本的製作成本很高。因此，問題的最底層可能是-我們如何支付藝術家，音樂家，軟件開發人員等的初始副本，然後以匿名方式進行傳播？ （我們確實想要隱私）
如果我們只能讓所有人攜帶加密密鑰，則構成已確定屬於活着的人類的一組公共密鑰的 %% S %% ，並且如果這些密鑰可以衍生出回放，視圖或用途的簽名，則這些簽名應與該集合中的密鑰，但不能解析爲該集合中的任何特定公共密鑰，那麼-我們所有人都可以對我們的每個回放進行簽名，識別出人類的使用方式，而無需解決任何驗證碼，並且不會損害我們的隱私權，以及這可能有助於將適當的信用額度提供給提供商。但是，當涉及初始副本的創建者時，具有從藝術品或工程作品的特徵集生成的唯一“藝術品簽名”（就像生物簽名），可能會解決跟蹤唯一性的問題。實際上，這樣的藝術品簽名可能是分層的，因爲其他人可以從其他人那裏獲得作品，並且可以比專利服務更好。
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.
■
沒有人應該成爲商品。
大宗商品之所以好，是因爲它使東西便宜了，只是起到了使人貧窮的作用。
是中介。這是有害的。
我喜歡微交易的想法來支付我們消費的媒體費用。我認爲這就是您的想法。
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.
有趣的問題。錢從哪裏來？對於音樂來說，錢來自用於銷售市場的訂閱和/或用戶數據。在軟件的情況下是相同的。我推測這些公司專門銷售廣告...
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...
食品£0，藥品£0，交通運輸£0
永遠不會發生。但是，我樂於接受將食品，藥品和運輸商品製成商品的想法。
祕密地認爲交通是在浪費人力，而人們應該生活在管理良好的社區中，因此您需要與之互動的每個人都會自動進入生活。
£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.
//食品£0，藥品£0，交通運輸£0
自行車和電梯（升降機）的交通費用接近0英鎊。其他事情可能需要一段時間。
//這樣，您需要與之互動的每個人都會自動進入生活//
但是，人們怎麼會知道生活中需要與誰互動呢？我有一個類似的想法：一個城市。
// £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.