![]() ![]() License, sell, transfer, assign, distribute, host, or otherwise commercially exploit the Services or Content NB: "Certain features", that clearly means that features are not gated by sign in, and that the ToS also applies to them.Įxcept and solely to the extent such a restriction is impermissible under applicable law, you may not, without our written agreement: Where on earth would you get that impression?įrom the reddit ToS: "To use certain features of our Services, you may be required to create a Reddit account (an “Account”) and provide us with a username, password, and certain other information about yourself as set forth in the Privacy Policy." > IANAL but my understanding is that violating the ToS is only ever a problem if your crawler decides to "sign-in" What I've specified above is loosely conceived and would need a lot of thought to turn it into something useful. Or a creator might want to put ads in videos longer than a certain length. ![]() Creators might want to be able to never even think about ads and just check a box that says "put an ad in front of every video I upload" and then forget it. Advertisers might want to target specific creator's channels or whole segments of created content. Some people want to pay 10 bucks a month (Amazon Prime) and forget about the rest. There should be more and less granularity in how different parties engage. Is there someone out there who wants to be a technical mentor? I'd be game. ![]() I don't have the technical hutzpah to build out something like this. This won't ever be truly decentralized, and there is a whole ecosystem of services external to the network that would be needed for this to function well (payment processors, content collation and moderation - kind of like how mastodon works, a bidding marketplace for advertisers to interface with the content network, a front end for seeders to select and re-seed, and so on). If they want to bid on a broad category of creators or videos, they can. If they want to bid on a specific creator's video slots, they can. An advertiser can bid on slots in as precise or general way as they want. Most viewers will tolerate ads and wont want to pay money so instead they pay time. The market may equalize itself.įinally, we have advertisers, which are the monetary fuel for the fire. The producer can set their payments to whatever they want. Now there's a financial benefit to seeding a popular video/song. But what a producer can do is elect to provide a percentage of their required income to seeders. The producer can't possibly feed a million viewers in the first hour. You see, the producer has a second order relationship with the seeders. Requiring payment for the content is optional, but advisable. The producer doesn't have a choice whether the consumer pays or not, only that payment is required. This money can come from one of two places: first, an advertiser can bid on slots the producer has chosen, second, the consumer can pay the producer directly. Attached to the content is a pay-per-view requirement the producer has elected to require payment to view this content. Every other part of the network is designed to support and benefit their interaction.įirst, a content producer creates a piece of content (or steals it, let's be realistic) and publishes it on the network. The prime relationship is between a consumer and a content producer. So, there a few kinds of people on the network: advertisers (hang in there, I'll explain why), leechers (or consumer), content producers, and seeders. I've had an idea in the back of my head for what would make a decentralized video service work, and it plays with the idea of peer driven networks. Why not a bittorrent style peering mechanism? Popular content will always have pools of people who are consuming it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |