Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

subvert.fm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 140 posts

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#111

Post by gradientsrneat »

bee_rider wrote: post #13

A successor to bandcamp would be really nice. I think it is hard to determine if a site will become one, because it is largely about network effect—Bandcamp had enough users (customers and artists) that it was, like, worthwhile to give them your credit card info… Totally tangential and probably revealing that I have absolutely no understanding of the music creation ecosystem and process, but is there room for, like,…

> worthwhile to give them your credit card info

Bandcamp didn't even accept people's credit card info (maybe it's changed in recent years and they have more payment options now). They outsourced payment processing to PayPal.

Most small shopping sites in USA don't handle their own payments due to regulations.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#112

Post by unnamed76ri »

4dregress wrote: post #92
unnamed76ri wrote: post #87

Listeners want the convenience of Spotify and don’t care about artists or even know what Bandcamp is, let alone something after Bandcamp. I’m an indie artist and I want things to be different but until you convince people to give up convenience for principles, projects like this won’t mean much.

Let the shit music exist on Spotify, if you value your take control of it, throwing it into the void and prostrating yourself on social media begging people to listen to it is not doing yourself or your art justice!

Fair enough. Genuinely asking, how do people who have never heard of you find your music if not through Spotify or social media?

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#113

Post by 4dregress »

unnamed76ri wrote: post #112
4dregress wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let the shit music exist on Spotify, if you value your take control of it, throwing it into the void and prostrating yourself on social media begging people to listen to it is not doing yourself or your art justice!

Fair enough. Genuinely asking, how do people who have never heard of you find your music if not through Spotify or social media?

Play shows, build a scene

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#114

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

cyberax wrote: post #110
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They create a new address and from it they publish a revocation of the old address. Then they re-register their content and associate it with payment patterns that pay out to the new address. Then they propagate the new address in-person. When fans trust the new address, their client notices the conflict and they're prompted to prune the old one (since the trust-score on the new one is higher). If the artist-fan-trus…

> Once it gets suitably high, the pending payments into it are reversed back to the fans So basically: you're screwed. > Besides, art is supposed to be transformative, not status-quo preserving. Blah-blah-blah. I would really love to belong to a collective that puts my music right next to CSAM. Fans would really appreciate it. So now you have to have an enforcement mechanism, like voting. What if somebody hacks enoug…

What do you mean "next to"? You provide a file, the system gives you a way to pay the people who made it and a way to prove to others that you've done so. If you keep CSAM next to your music, that's on you.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#115

Post by theamk »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #67
littlestymaar wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Certainly plenty of poorly designed crypto things also have that point of control, They all have. They just claim they can work against social dynamics with technology but that's a fool errand.

Several technologies have managed it. The printing press, the vaccine, the nuclear bomb. It's even crazier to not try.

It's been 16 years, I think by that time we can be pretty sure cryptocurrency is not going to transform anything other than ransomware payments, law evasion and financial speculation.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#116

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

theamk wrote: post #115
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several technologies have managed it. The printing press, the vaccine, the nuclear bomb. It's even crazier to not try.

It's been 16 years, I think by that time we can be pretty sure cryptocurrency is not going to transform anything other than ransomware payments, law evasion and financial speculation.

It took the steam engine 100 years, I think the jury is still out.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#117

Post by theamk »

Self-Perfection wrote: post #105
josephg wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve yet to see any useful product built on top of crypto. Can you name any ? (Not including things that just make early adopters rich or simply provide services to other crypto related projects).

How about auctions for telegram usernames? It helps to distribute limited resource.

Telegram usernames are fully centralized - you have to trust Telegram FZ LLC to ensure auction results are respected.

Which means there is no extra trust from blockchain, it's just a gimmick.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#118

Post by cyberax »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #114
cyberax wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once it gets suitably high, the pending payments into it are reversed back to the fans So basically: you're screwed. > Besides, art is supposed to be transformative, not status-quo preserving. Blah-blah-blah. I would really love to belong to a collective that puts my music right next to CSAM. Fans would really appreciate it. So now you have to have an enforcement mechanism, like voting. What if somebody hacks enoug…

What do you mean "next to"? You provide a file, the system gives you a way to pay the people who made it and a way to prove to others that you've done so. If you keep CSAM next to your music, that's on you.

So each musician has to keep track of everyone's else tracks? Including key changes? Or is there an organization that manages it?

What if an actor disappears and the timeout makes all the tracks unavailable until they are re-uploaded with a new key?

I can go on indefinitely. There's a reason "smart contracts" are now just another way of saying "scam", and why blockchain is only seriously pushed by scammers and criminals.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#119

Post by bee_rider »

gradientsrneat wrote: post #111
bee_rider wrote: post #13

A successor to bandcamp would be really nice. I think it is hard to determine if a site will become one, because it is largely about network effect—Bandcamp had enough users (customers and artists) that it was, like, worthwhile to give them your credit card info… Totally tangential and probably revealing that I have absolutely no understanding of the music creation ecosystem and process, but is there room for, like,…

> worthwhile to give them your credit card info Bandcamp didn't even accept people's credit card info (maybe it's changed in recent years and they have more payment options now). They outsourced payment processing to PayPal. Most small shopping sites in USA don't handle their own payments due to regulations.

I bought stuff from Bandcamp and I don’t have an active PayPal account, they must have added some options.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#120

Post by Self-Perfection »

theamk wrote: post #117
Self-Perfection wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about auctions for telegram usernames? It helps to distribute limited resource.

Telegram usernames are fully centralized - you have to trust Telegram FZ LLC to ensure auction results are respected. Which means there is no extra trust from blockchain, it's just a gimmick.

Yes, it is true that Telegram can technically ignore who owns an NFT with a username, just like any platform can strip a user of their username.

However:

1. If someone approaches you and wants to buy your username, you can sell it without the need for trust in the buyer or a third party.

2. Consider this scenario: someone writes anonymously in a public channel and then Telegram removes the channel, and bans its username. If the author has an NFT associated with their username, they have a way to prove to the public that the new platform where they continue to post is indeed managed by the same person and not an impostor.

Therefore, there is additional value in using blockchain in this case.

Post reply on HN