4 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2021
    1. In this idealised utopia we obviously want to place value on sharing and curation as well as original creation, which means giving a small fraction of the payment to the re-publisher as well.We should note monetisation of all this content is optional. Some websites would allow their content to be transcluded for free, while others might charge hefty fees for a few sentences. If all goes well, we'd expect the majority of content on the web to be either free or priced at reasonable micro-amounts.

      While this is nice in theory, there's a long road strewn with attempts at micropayments on the web. I see new ones every six months or so. (Here's a recent one: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqrvNoDE35lFDUv2enkaEKuo6ATBj9GmL)

      This also dramatically misses the idea of how copyright and intellectual property work in many countries with regard to fair use doctrine. For short quotes and excerpts almost anyone anywhere can do this for free already. It's definitely nice and proper to credit the original, but as a society we already have norms for how to do this.

  2. Mar 2020
    1. This might not be the most user-friendly solution. But it’s certainly creative and something different from your typical captcha systems. Pennyauth aims to verify your users by asking them to pay $0.01 per login. Payments are processed using QUID — and users can submit payment in as little time as it takes for them to grab their credit card.
  3. May 2016
    1. Hence Linux, hence Wikipedia. Because these communities could grow and collaborate without geographic constraint, major work was done at significantly lower cost and often zero price.

      I would argue this was a mistake which we are now paying for structurally.

      If Linux was licensed such that derivative profitable use payed equity to the contributors to Linux, than many more people would share in the profits of Google, Facebook, Amazon, Rackspace, and so many more. If you take Google as an example, the company earns ~4.5M$ in profit per employee, of course 80% of their infrastructure is free software. Now imagine that each project on github was wired up using microtransaction systems and a system for assigning equity to those who contribute to the source code. Then as for-profit use of the application generates microtransactions that revenue is split by the current equity distribution to the equity holders.

      This distribution of revenue would allow for a hybrid between the open and distributed, also a more sovereign participation model of open source and the benefits of economic integration rather than simple exposure to economic exploitation.