←back to thread

Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

(subvert.fm)
226 points cloudfudge | 1 comments | 18 Oct 24 16:17 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mmooss ◴[18 Oct 24 17:57 UTC] No.41881857[source]▶
It's a great start. Co-ops and non-profits can also be subverted and taken over. I hope you look ahead and plan very carefully.

For example, according to an (unverified) story someone told me, a vendor to US east coast food cooperatives now controls many of them; they get their person in, pass bylaws empowering them and disempowering the board (the board usually lacking sophistication), and have deeper pockets for any legal struggle than any co-op member does.

Also, I remember in the news that a non-profit or limited-profit company in the IT industry, founded for the public good, is going to be turned into a for-profit. The board actually fired the person behind this plan, but that person came back and fired the board members.

replies(6): >>41882450 #>>41883179 #>>41883240 #>>41883384 #>>41883413 #>>41887617 #
__MatrixMan__ ◴[18 Oct 24 19:05 UTC] No.41882450[source]▶
The FAQ has:

> Is this a crypto thing?

>> No.

I realize that crypto is a bad word for some people, but I think that the above answer has a corollary:

> Does it have a single point of control that will attract corruption if enough of us start using it?

>> Yes

Certainly plenty of poorly designed crypto things also have that point of control, but a well designed crypto thing at least has a shot at resilience.

replies(5): >>41882504 #>>41882792 #>>41883252 #>>41883259 #>>41883338 #
theamk ◴[18 Oct 24 19:43 UTC] No.41882792[source]▶
Smart contracts only affects on-chain stuff, and this deals with real-world things. No smart contract is going to help you if webmasters update website, or if a board decides to add a rule.

See also: NFT delisting.

replies(2): >>41884106 #>>41884129 #
__MatrixMan__ ◴[18 Oct 24 22:35 UTC] No.41884106[source]▶
When I imagine using crypto for this problem, the on-chain portion is a registry of hashes (for the songs) which maps them to addresses which I can send money to and then the contract multiplexes the money out to the appropriate people. So if it's one dude with a guitar and a microphone, 100% goes to him. But if it's a remix of a remix of a remix, then maybe that money gets split 50 ways.

I don't know if I need a website or a board for that. Of course I'm not the one building this, so my imagined design doesn't matter. But the question is: if not that, then what? I'm curious, I'm just gonna sleep on it before I decide that I'm $100 curious.

Edit: I see I can get the zine digitally first before deciding to be an owner. I guess I have some reading to do.

replies(3): >>41885184 #>>41885415 #>>41892379 #
1. theamk ◴[20 Oct 24 02:12 UTC] No.41892379[source]▶
That is so blockchain: a solution that does not work and users do not need.

Blockchain only sees hashes, so it has no way of knowing if that hash of a new song that was just uploaded is really a remix. But, if you solve this somehow (and I bet you can't in a way that can't be gamed), people can just distribute remixes outside of blockchain altogether. No blockchain is going to help you collect royalties from youtube stream.

Second, "money distribution for remixes without trusted parties" is not a very common problem. If contract participants want to cheat each other, they can do it easily by lying about number of listeners, they don't need to do something trivially detectable like messing with contract itself.