Devcoin Venture

[MosinNagant]

I propose a record label. All music produced from this label would be entirely free -- with each artist being able to accept devcoin donations, as well as being paid a flat fee for releasing albums under the label. I'd be more than happy to manage such a venture.

Hopefully, provided the project goes well there would be the opportunity to set up tours for artists under the label in the future. This would earn them much more money considering creating an album (or any kind of art indeed) is unquantifiable in monetary terms.

Artists who feel they earn more than they need can put money back into the label or just donate their devcoins elsewhere.

It would also give me an outlet; I'd rather not just spam up devtome with my own lyrics.

That is an awesome idea, are you attempting to make it now or when would you start trying to manage it? Do you know any artists, I know some people... As long as the contracts were flexible, and especially if we allowed them to sell it to other people as well as have it free on the DVC site.

I've been attempting to make it for a while. I think any artist with some wisdom about the industry would prefer to give their music out for free anyway, they tend to earn not much more than a pittance for CD sales. I know many artists, too. As for letting them sell it themselves? I think that would go south rather quickly. It would complicate the image of the label as well as what the artist is actually trying to achieve by giving out free music. I am planning on implementing a system where you can buy real 'collectors edition' CDs/Vinyls from certain artists that garner a certain amount of downloads.

If the idea is successful, naturally I will develop a solid business plan for it; and begin speaking to other people. But I do have to bear in mind, even if this idea was to win, 12 generation shares can only go so far -- so I don't want to say anything 'big' is in the works. [rant]But I'd like to make some waves. Too much shit music gets produced these days because the general populace love to listen to garbage. I'd like to get some attention focused on those who just want to be heard, and understood. [/rant]

[FinShaggy]

I've been attempting to make it for a while. I think any artist with some wisdom about the industry would prefer to give their music out for free anyway, they tend to earn not much more than a pittance for CD sales. I know many artists, too. As for letting them sell it themselves? I think that would go south rather quickly. It would complicate the image of the label as well as what the artist is actually trying to achieve by giving out free music. I am planning on implementing a system where you can buy real 'collectors edition' CDs/Vinyls from certain artists that garner a certain amount of downloads.

If the idea is successful, naturally I will develop a solid business plan for it; and begin speaking to other people. But I do have to bear in mind, even if this idea was to win, 12 generation shares can only go so far -- so I don't want to say anything 'big' is in the works. [rant]But I'd like to make some waves. Too much shit music gets produced these days because the general populace love to listen to garbage. I'd like to get some attention focused on those who just want to be heard, and understood. [/rant]

I think some artists don't give out free music just to give out free music, they give out free music so that people will spread the word about their songs without having to buy an album. So letting them sell their music at their concerts, with or without our label on them wouldn't be a bad thing. If we restrict them, we are just like every other record label, controlling them and their music, just for less payment for them...

And about the shares not being able to go too far, I think we should make not only a bounty list for this stuff, but a thread/website or something so that we can accept and give donations to fund stuff like this over time. I think if we had a board of like 5-20 writers on a "charity board" we could get a lot done

[termhn]

My first proposal is a global exchange built into the wallet application.
It would include:
1. Exchange from DVC to all other coins
2. Built in, customize-able automatic escrow service for PPUSD (PayPal) direct transfers.

This exchange should be P2P so that it can not easily be DoS/DDoSed.

[markm]

My first proposal is a global exchange built into the wallet application.
It would include:
1. Exchange from DVC to all other coins
2. Built in, customize-able automatic escrow service for PPUSD (PayPal) direct transfers.

This exchange should be P2P so that it can not easily be DoS/DDoSed.

PayPal's problem is the 180-day reversal of transfers, which actually originates with the credit cards many people use to fund PayPal.

So escrow of PayPal funds would need to be 180 days...

-MarkM-

[psybits]

My first proposal is a global exchange built into the wallet application.
It would include:
1. Exchange from DVC to all other coins
2. Built in, customize-able automatic escrow service for PPUSD (PayPal) direct transfers.

This exchange should be P2P so that it can not easily be DoS/DDoSed.

I really like the idea of an exchange built into the DVC client!

It would be cool if it was qt client as well.

[markm]

As long as it only exchanges between cryptocoins, and uses the other coin's *coind or *coin-qt in -server mode to handle the other chain's side of the exchange, it might be do-able.

-MarkM-

[termhn]

My first proposal is a global exchange built into the wallet application.
It would include:
1. Exchange from DVC to all other coins
2. Built in, customize-able automatic escrow service for PPUSD (PayPal) direct transfers.

This exchange should be P2P so that it can not easily be DoS/DDoSed.

PayPal's problem is the 180-day reversal of transfers, which actually originates with the credit cards many people use to fund PayPal.

So escrow of PayPal funds would need to be 180 days...

-MarkM-

Huh. I thought it was some amount of hours that you had to start disputing the transaction... that's I thought it said when I was using it yesterday at least.

[markm]

45 days I think for a PayPal dispute.

-MarkM-

[psybits]

As long as it only exchanges between cryptocoins, and uses the other coin's *coind or *coin-qt in -server mode to handle the other chain's side of the exchange, it might be do-able.

-MarkM-

Otherwise I suppose Open Transactions is already doing something similar? Any way to integrate that?

[markm]

Open Transactions is supposed to be a system service, so you would not integrate it itself into anything, otherwise everything would end up with its own copy of Open Transactions inside it.

Instead it will be a service, probably using URI, that browsers and instant message clients and skype type apps and basically anything that wants or needs any kind of financial services will all make calls to.

That approach also prevents multiple things all trying to write the financial data at the same time. They will al go through the Open Transactions daemon aka system service aka system-tray-app to do everything.

Meanwhile, I am seeing that maybe the idea of using a real banking system is not popular at all... Last time I set up Cyclos it was behind Tor so there was a tendency to claim it was the Tor part that led to no-oine bothering to look at it. This time it is right out in the open at http://dvcstable02.devcoin.org:8080 yet only one person so far has bothered to create an account so they can look inside it.

So maybe the idea of having Cyclos modules built that will interface to blockchains is a no-go from the get-go. A pity since it has apps for the major phones and fun stuff that like that seemed like they could be quite useful, especially in places like Africa where apparently everyone use phones.

See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=193312.0

-MarkM-

[MosinNagant]

I think some artists don't give out free music just to give out free music, they give out free music so that people will spread the word about their songs without having to buy an album.

This is true, but that's only half of the artist I'd be trying to attract with such a venture. It's not a publicity stunt, it's a philosophy of an idea. I'm trying to appeal to the musician who has to make music. And they'd put all their energies into creating that music, whether they got paid for it or not.

So letting them sell their music at their concerts, with or without our label on them wouldn't be a bad thing. If we restrict them, we are just like every other record label, controlling them and their music, just for less payment for them...

It's true, letting them sell their music in such a situation wouldn't hurt much, but again, the kind of artist I'm looking for doesn't really want to sell their music in the first place. They'd just do so because we live in a world where rent exists.

And about the shares not being able to go too far, I think we should make not only a bounty list for this stuff, but a thread/website or something so that we can accept and give donations to fund stuff like this over time. I think if we had a board of like 5-20 writers on a "charity board" we could get a lot done

Yeah, I'd like to hear from Unthinkingbit on this one. I.E do devcoin funded ventures only get a one time payment? Can they re-apply until they are self-sufficient? I'd really like to make such a thing a reality, but I don't know how much hype I can generate for these artists from a month's worth of pay. Naturally the aim would be to make the venture self-sufficient as quickly as possible, mind. Running something at a loss isn't worth running.

[FinShaggy]

I think some artists don't give out free music just to give out free music, they give out free music so that people will spread the word about their songs without having to buy an album.

This is true, but that's only half of the artist I'd be trying to attract with such a venture. It's not a publicity stunt, it's a philosophy of an idea. I'm trying to appeal to the musician who has to make music. And they'd put all their energies into creating that music, whether they got paid for it or not.

So letting them sell their music at their concerts, with or without our label on them wouldn't be a bad thing. If we restrict them, we are just like every other record label, controlling them and their music, just for less payment for them...

It's true, letting them sell their music in such a situation wouldn't hurt much, but again, the kind of artist I'm looking for doesn't really want to sell their music in the first place. They'd just do so because we live in a world where rent exists.

And about the shares not being able to go too far, I think we should make not only a bounty list for this stuff, but a thread/website or something so that we can accept and give donations to fund stuff like this over time. I think if we had a board of like 5-20 writers on a "charity board" we could get a lot done

Yeah, I'd like to hear from Unthinkingbit on this one. I.E do devcoin funded ventures only get a one time payment? Can they re-apply until they are self-sufficient? I'd really like to make such a thing a reality, but I don't know how much hype I can generate for these artists from a month's worth of pay. Naturally the aim would be to make the venture self-sufficient as quickly as possible, mind. Running something at a loss isn't worth running.

1) Whether or not they want to, they need to sell their music to survive, and since the label would give away their music for free, they would have to sell it themselves on the side. Or else we would just have a bunch of McDonalds employees trying to be musicians, instead of straight up artists.

2) Again, whether or not they want to sell it, something has to be sold somewhere.

3) Just because something needs initial funding doesn't mean that it won't make money in the future. Everything takes capitol though, that's just simply how capitalism works...

[metazilla]

My first proposal is a global exchange built into the wallet application.
It would include:
1. Exchange from DVC to all other coins
2. Built in, customize-able automatic escrow service for PPUSD (PayPal) direct transfers.

This exchange should be P2P so that it can not easily be DoS/DDoSed.

1. Seems doable, using the APIs of the exchanges. You'd just have to register at the exchange and put in your API key. Although I'm curious how you would want it integrated with the other *coins. Say you did something like convert 100000 DVC to BTC, should it just do the conversion and then say "coins converted" and they show up in your BTC client? Or should the DVC client list your BTC balance (as well as the balance for all the other coins)?

2. Not a huge fan of this idea for the same reasons mark said.

---

I'm also a big fan of the record label idea, or at least some way for musicians to get paid in DVC for making free/open-source music apart from posting lyrics on devtome (what about instrumental music!?). Maybe you could do a pay-what-you-want model like Bandcamp does. Or have digital downloads free, and charge for physical copies of the album (only a slight markup on production, that goes straight to the artists).

Ideally though, I'd like to see musicians be able to earn generation shares for creating free and remixable music. There already is a lot of free (as in beer) music out there, but there is _not_ a lot of free (as in open source) music out there. The only big band I can think of that releases open source music is Nine Inch Nails - and I could see them being interested in a project like this.

And FinShaggy, a lot of artists will give away their music for free and rely on things like t-shirt sales, playing shows, and donations to make money. I think the ideal form of this is the pay-what-you-want model. Radiohead released their album In Rainbows as a pay-what-you-want thing and still made millions, even though you could just download it for free.

[MosinNagant]

1) Whether or not they want to, they need to sell their music to survive, and since the label would give away their music for free, they would have to sell it themselves on the side. Or else we would just have a bunch of McDonalds employees trying to be musicians, instead of straight up artists.

2) Again, whether or not they want to sell it, something has to be sold somewhere.

3) Just because something needs initial funding doesn't mean that it won't make money in the future. Everything takes capitol though, that's just simply how capitalism works...

You're missing my point somewhat; the amount of money you make from CD sales after a label takes their cut is basically zero. Because in the days of piracy -- nobody can be bothered. Tours, performing is how an artist makes his money from his music. Giving out the music just takes one problem out of the equation, namely; 'How do I get these people to buy my music?' the answer my label would put out is, 'You don't even have to sell your music. Just be yourself.'

If an artist really feels he needs to sell his CDs as well as make tour money, then there are other labels for them. No good business doesn't have a basic philosophy behind it.

Ideally though, I'd like to see musicians be able to earn generation shares for creating free and remixable music. There already is a lot of free (as in beer) music out there, but there is _not_ a lot of free (as in open source) music out there. The only big band I can think of that releases open source music is Nine Inch Nails - and I could see them being interested in a project like this.

That's really true, and resonates with me a lot. As well as the part about instrumental music. Ideally the label would become a platform for all of these things to succeed; I'm just trying to start with the basics. Too much too soon would likely kill it in action.

[FinShaggy]

1) Whether or not they want to, they need to sell their music to survive, and since the label would give away their music for free, they would have to sell it themselves on the side. Or else we would just have a bunch of McDonalds employees trying to be musicians, instead of straight up artists.

2) Again, whether or not they want to sell it, something has to be sold somewhere.

3) Just because something needs initial funding doesn't mean that it won't make money in the future. Everything takes capitol though, that's just simply how capitalism works...

You're missing my point somewhat; the amount of money you make from CD sales after a label takes their cut is basically zero. Because in the days of piracy -- nobody can be bothered. Tours, performing is how an artist makes his money from his music. Giving out the music just takes one problem out of the equation, namely; 'How do I get these people to buy my music?' the answer my label would put out is, 'You don't even have to sell your music. Just be yourself.'

If an artist really feels he needs to sell his CDs as well as make tour money, then there are other labels for them. No good business doesn't have a basic philosophy behind it.

I totally forgot about ticket sales, we would need a marketing company too. Devertising or Devent Co...

[Unthinkingbit]

..
Yeah, I'd like to hear from Unthinkingbit on this one. I.E do devcoin funded ventures only get a one time payment?

Yes. The 12 share award is not enough for big projects. It's meant for stuff that can be developed in about a week of labor.

Can they re-apply until they are self-sufficient?

No. Bigger projects will have to wait until we get a bigger market capitalization.

[markm]

Ideally though, I'd like to see musicians be able to earn generation shares for creating free and remixable music. There already is a lot of free (as in beer) music out there, but there is _not_ a lot of free (as in open source) music out there.

A big problem with both graphic artists and musicians if the part about open SOURCE.

Both artists and musicians often either fail to grasp the concept of SOURCE or refuse to release SOURCE once they do understand it.

In music for example, a lot of digital music composers actually use proprietary programs and even proprietary "samples", and they not only cannot release those actual "sources" but also refuse to release their own layers of source that take those proprietary components and put them together.

So I suspect for instrumental music we first need free open source instruments, so that when someone composes a score that says "have the violin play this while the cello plays that, meanwhile this drum that drum and that drum play this that and the other drumbeats" kind of thing the SOURCE CODE can INCLUDE the (or at least a) violin, a cello, and the specific types of drums along with the specific impacts upon them that are called for by the piece.

With graphics you often get a similar problem. Someone takes a 3D model they do not want to release or that they cannot (because it is proprietary) release, and use it to create several "layers" of a multi-layer image, then they compile those layers irreversibly into a single layer that is all they are willing or able to release. The "source layers" are not provided, let along any "source model" that was used to compile the "source layers". They end up giving you the resulting compiled gif or jpg or whatever type of image file, the compiled result of using all those various sources.

They can get very irate about all this too, as making you have to go back to them to get any adjustments of the compiled image or compiled track(s) of music is probably how they plan to make their money. They give out a compiled track or image-file, holding back the actual samples and instrument-models in the case of sound or the actual multi-layer image files and actual models used to create them in the case of images.

In short, they refuse to release the "source". All you get is a compiled end-result, not the sources used to build it and the algorithm/procedure/script that does the building of it from those sources.

So a good place to start maybe would be sample libraries and instruments for musicians / sound-effects artists, and 3D models and other stock art that can be released freely with whatever an artist ends up building with it.

Then they won't be able to claim anymore "oh but there is no free open source version of the instruments I used, they are part of a proprietary package I use" because we will retort "then your product is not free open SOURCE, it is proprietary source, and thus is not eligible".

Eventually we can extend this beyond digital. Is a Stradivarius open source, as in all patents and copyrights etc on each individual one are expired so it can be freely replicated once we have replicators? Same with all physical instruments used by a band, etc: if we cannot run the sintruments through a replicator in principle, that is clone them freely, then they do not qualify...

...Remember that replicators, starting at our primitive technology level with so called "3D printers" are on our roadmap. Thus of course by free open source we mean we can freely replicate...

If your Gibson or whatever guitar is so great and makes such great music, lets get its specs down pat so we can churn them out so everyone who wants to compile/execute/perform/replicate the piece of music can do so ... by replicating that special instrument that is the source of that great sound...

-MarkM-

[metazilla]

In music for example, a lot of digital music composers actually use proprietary programs and even proprietary "samples", and they not only cannot release those actual "sources" but also refuse to release their own layers of source that take those proprietary components and put them together.

So I suspect for instrumental music we first need free open source instruments, so that when someone composes a score that says "have the violin play this while the cello plays that, meanwhile this drum that drum and that drum play this that and the other drumbeats" kind of thing the SOURCE CODE can INCLUDE the (or at least a) violin, a cello, and the specific types of drums along with the specific impacts upon them that are called for by the piece.

Yeah I can see this being an issue. I spent a bit of time making amateur electronic music, and this definitely does come up, even with a friend sending you their track. What often happens is the program will say "looking for X sample" and if you have the same sample pack you can just point the program to the files. I think a music track where the project file is entirely open source, but that uses proprietary samples (or VSTs, or whatever) should be okay, given that most people who make electronic music use proprietary programs at some point or another. That said, there are open source programs, but many musicians are familiar with a certain program, and prefer to make music in that, and like you said, they shouldn't necessarily be forced to change that. I'd say that projects that are entirely open source should get like double the shares, and if you made the samples you'd get shares for the samples as well.

I think it gets even more complicated when the music is made using physical instruments or hardware. Sure, we can open source the score, and the even 3D files allowing someone to reproduce the hardware exactly, but unless you can record the player's performance somehow, that part will be impossible to reproduce. In this case, I think as long as the actual audio is available to freely remix and sample, the artist should still be awarded shares.

And here's an idea: the devcoin music project could have its own "shares", basically it would distribute shares of its own value, that it gets from the Devcoin generation shares, donations, and selling physical albums/t-shirts/etc. This way, each round people could vote on how many shares should go to the music project, and then the music project admins, or even some sort of voting section on the music site, could decide how the music shares are given out.

[markm]

You and also maybe some earlier posts are almost getting ahead of us here, there are some things in the works that might be very relevant to some of the ideas people have mentioned but for technical reasons there has perforce been a slight technical delay in releasing the actual roadmap.

Hopefully the last of those technical delays are being taken care of right now so that very soon now some interesting new additions to the roadmap can be released.

-MarkM-

EDIT: As to musicians using proprietary programs, as long as they can in principle be duplicated in free open source, that is all the algorithms are simply algorithms, freely usable/implementable by any programmer in any programming language, I do not see a problem. Where problems arise is when people try to patent algorithms. As long as the samples are free open source, and the same algorithms / computation can be done on them in principle by simply making a free open source program that performs the same computation / algorithm there is no problem, I think. The problems tend to arise when people start claiming some particular sequence of bits, considered as a sound bite, or some particular algorithm or procedure, regardless of programming language in which it is implemented, cannot be freely used. Or even more abstract expressions of a waveform. "This waveform is proprietary, no noisemaker is allowed to make this exact noise as this noise is special and we own it" type stuff.

[AlexMerced]

Here's an idea:

Building Website CMS's that can easily be configured for toher currencies like Multicoin

- Shopping Cart CMS similar to CoingGig.com

- Exchange CMS (to easily create a BTC/XXX type exchange)

- Online Wallet CMS

etc.

Or even better make one that can support multiple currencies at the same time.