"zero choice" don't be ridiculous

people still pay for the single even though they can download it off torrents

this conversation has bored me to death

artists are scarce too, and without them there is no content to host and compute

the artist generally has to accept the offer from a delivery provider, or choose another one that they find more favorable, it's just the nature of art, and why for much of the 20th century it was monopolised by the publishers, back when delivering the material had a high cost and risk of non-marketability

a lot of artists do themselves a disservice (and inventors also) by trying to use copyright monopoly delivery providers and end up almost nobody hears about them and worse, their material doesn't sell and their contracts are cancelled

then it all ends up being given away for free anyway because this restrictive, customer-punitive delivery service simply was a bad choice for the artist, this still doesn't invalidate that there is a market price for delivering content and thus content itself, as a factor of this production, has a value as well

content that is popular earns more for the artist, and this also benefits the provider who is then also well known for this artist

sorry, i don't get your logic

tidal streams media to you:

- content delivery system requires authentication

- tidal auths you, then they auth the CDN to send to you

this has no impact on either payment model (pay per use vs time based subscriptions) nor on how you charge for it, it is just logistics

it is the same as paid relays or paid media hosting (eg nostr.build) - they will most likely stick to time based subscriptions and adjust them if they undershoot or demand is low and they are still in the black

it's easy to not make a loss on it too... just overestimate the delivery cost per customer and charge a good wide margin and then you don't have to nag the clients to increase their fees so often, also

idk what the obsession with #v4v is about

it's simply not how you do business

- business sets price

- customers buy, or not

- price is periodically adjusted to balance between supply and demand

- profit

not setting a price on an offer is just rude

people are free to disagree and not buy

businesses are free to raise or lower their prices based on their own strategic and financial criteria and projections

anything else is just throwing coins at the busker in the underground train station, and that's the suffering of the artist

artists are always begging, that's how it works, that's why there are galleries and promoters, most of the time their hardest thing is people learning about them, and that's why the content itself is free of copyright so it can circulate and become known and then streaming services and high quality downloads can be sold

bandcamp has been doing this very successfully for years, as has spotify and soundcloud

artists dictate the terms of their licenses... and yet you still see artists like Stellardrone who give away their music as well

anyone who publishes their music, directly, on youtube understands that the tragedy of being an artist is not being known

so, please, don't confuse copyright as a business model, it's not, it's anticompetitive, socialist practice that doesn't help artists at all, and if anything the whole point about v4v is simply acknowledging that artists make their money on delivering the art, and thus promoters and streaming services and pay-for-premium downloading is a thing

it's even a thing in software with gaming!

It won't. They have an ability to create a sister social network which uses Tidal brand and seamessly integrates in Tidal UX aimed at artists based on Nostr which will heavily use kind0s. They've recently launched Tidal Circles closed beta which is a Twitter-like experience for artists. It doesn't make any sense unless it uses Nostr under the hood. As it allows anonymous posting I suspect it is in fact a Nostr client.

delivering content on demand from giant CDNs is still a service

I am still ultra confused about the TIDAL/Nostr thing. O.o

How did this come to be and what is their goal...? Came outta nowhere.

If I think your product is bad but want you to improve, so I zap you with a feature request - is that a good or a bad rating?

Wait, Zaps are reviews?

Yes, this was just to point out that there is a similar perception of the necessity on Reddit. I understand you are thinking of a more complex interaction, where the user can join the conversation without leaving their group.

Maybe this is difficult because a thread removed from the community context can be misleading to someone who joins from outside, so the conversation becomes more complex.

I love DVMs, but I increasingly feel like they're a bug-fix for improperly-conceived interfaces.

We should be following people we encountered in a natural way, because they share our interests (but not necessarily our opinions). And then the SM feed becomes the interactions of those people.

We need to turn the Twitter idea inside-out.

I love DVMs, but I increasingly feel like they're a bug-fix for improperly-conceived interfaces.

We should be following people we encountered in a natural way, because they share our interests (but not necessarily our opinions). And then the SM feed becomes the interactions of those people.

We need to turn the Twitter idea inside-out.

Are you talking about Fedimint ideas?