Holochain Forum

P2P electronic music sharing app

Hi everyone!

Holochain seems very interesting to me and looks like the best platform for building or better say migrating one of the biggest existing music sharing torrent websites to p2p/blockchain platform which would feature downloading, forums, extensive hierachical classification/tagging, detailed search engine, release request system, track id section, etc… All of that and some more is already implemented, but on ancient version of IPB forum which runs on ancient versions of PHP/MySQL.

This project is huge and step by step, I’m willing to finance its development. Anyone wanting to take a closer look to what already exists, please PM me with your short portfolio/skills information and your email address, so I can send an invite.

Hope someone resonates with this? :slight_smile:
Thanks!

3 Likes

I have an interest in live audio / video streaming from an Android phone to a Linux server web app that one or more people could listen to / view - it sounds like solving your use case might also benefit my use case?

Hmm… I don’t see how solving the streaming solves my p2p download app problem?

Ah . . that’s not what I said . . what I meant was that I will be interested in seeing your use case solved too . .

Great idea! What’s your view on compensating artists?

This might be a dumb idea, but I always thought it would be cool if users paid a monthly fee and then they could vote on their top 10 albums or songs each month, then their monthly fee could be distributed to those artists. If they failed to vote then it would just be based on their listening history.

This could also double as a social activity because people could share with each other their top tens for each month and could learn from friends they add about new artists.

1 Like

I like the idea of actively selecting who gets your listening dollar in addition to just having a pay-per-track/stream/listen thing going on. It would be Patreon without the extra steps when switching between artists to support.

One way to do the UX could be to just add an extra level of support to subscribed artists. + to subscribe, $ to support.

It’s a fun thought experiment to have Spotify without Spotify. I mean at its core, that whole thing is just gated access to a streaming server with a recommendation engine and social playlists. They get better margin the less you listen, they pay out less the more you go by their algos and skip around through artists rather than sticking to the top ones, and they keep you paying through social listening and the personalized feed.

With those dynamics gone, compensation could be aligned with desired user behavior directly; you could craft the compensation model around uploading albums and artwork, sharing and playing songs, curating playlists, adding lyrics and tabs, subscribing to artists etc.

1 Like

My view is that anyone who produces digital data (so not just music) and expect compensation must pursue it in a form that doesn’t interfere with what is considered normal behaviour today on the web - downloading for free. Digital products are so fundamentally different than regular products because they can be copied indefinitely. That makes them very special in a sense that, as much the copying is harmful for profits, it is stimulating also. Piracy enforces quality, and it’s possible to make a revolution from your home-based little studio. More, damages to creators are impossible to calculate - you can’t just multiply the price with number of copies people made, who says all downloaders would buy something in the first place? What about positive marketing network effects of copies spreaded around? So this project of mine is certanly not about enforcing copyrights as I’m greatly opposed to them. You can’t just forcefully put profits in creators pockets while in the same time actually punishing people who are just pushing the virtual buttons in a quest for knowledge and entertainment. Yeah I know my views are hardcore for the most people out there, but that I mostly blame the intensive brainswash by media and establishment when it comes to this issue.

Still ofc I have nothing against mechanisms of artists compensation related to subscription fees or plain selling of a product. I just say it can’t be enforced through laws.

‘Normal’ depends on your circumstances. As a flat broke student with all the time in the world, it was normal for me to bootleg and Napster and burn and swap mp3 CD-roms and whatnot. Nowadays, with a job and a family and stable broadband and 4G, I value access and convenience more, so Spotify is a great solution. I used to not care about ads so I didn’t pay for many years. Eventually I grew tired of them, so I now have a paid subscription. The journey was one from illegal and inconvenient, but free, to legal and convenient but annoying (ads!) to legal and convenient and paid. I can’t stand ad-financed radio anymore, the whole thing is the worst of all worlds.

The irony here is that along this journey, my overall music consumption probably went way, way down. So if anything annoys me now, it is that I pay a recurring fee to a middleman for something I hardly use. If some of my family weren’t professional musicians and got paid for plays, I might not think the system worked and that there were actual livelihoods – passionate, talent-driven, vibrant livelihoods – at stake. I might have not thought that getting paid for making music was ‘normal’. Same for games. Same for movies. They aren’t making themselves, and I gladly pay for quality work that brings me joy. I just can’t be arsed with Patreon, or wearing band t-shirts, or buying chinese coffee mugs shipped to France and printed with band logos. That monetization model doesn’t make sense – for me, at this point in life.

Your mileage may vary, and that’s okay. We all have different experiences.

For this thing to take off, it needs bootstrapping with basically the whole world’s music catalog. Not all at once, but in large enough steps to reach a critical mass of peers. None of the incumbents have incentives to make that happen, so it needs to be grassroots or pirate first – like Spotify.

The potential I see is to start over with a clean slate and make it so that the de facto curators, promotors and publishers – me as the flat broke student, hoarding and cataloguing mp3s, scanning booklets, bulk uploading and minding my Kazaa quotas – can be compensated for outputting quality ones and zeroes, just as the artists and the rest of the supply chain of recording engineers, producers, designers etc. Without that, I don’t see how a P2P based system can be ever get off the ground, as choice will be too limited, convenience (UX, payment, etc) will be inferior and this whole project can be written off by the mainstream as yet another piracy den ripping off artists.

The potential I see here is that as we transfer hosting and bandwidth costs from providers to peers –– essentially what Holo does –– we can move to paying directly for actually listening to songs and genuinely wanting to support artists, rather than middlemen.

There’s one huge drawback there and that is that if you rely on Spotify and similar services, it’s not guaranteed that the music there will stay online forever because contracts may expire and what not… And I guess most people like to have their own stable collections, especially if they’re DJs. Still your points are plausible, I just don’t know why you’re bothered to support artists through Patreon or donations, that seems to me like a really nice and clean pretty much direct way, albeit not exactly in Patreon’s case (don’t know what are fees there), but I think surely better than streaming platforms.

Agree. I would trust decentralized media hosting more than centralized or local, and I would want unrestricted access and a personal store of my metadata – playlists, social graph, history, etc. It never made sense to me to both pay for access and lock in my metadata with a private service.

As for contracts, the trick here would be to make a competing offer, from an artist POV, that provides better long term incentives than their current contract. Opt in to direct revenue to plays, opt out to restrict access to your work for all participants on the network. There will be plenty of artists who can’t be arsed to chase their rights, so the successful ones will still hire lawyers to enforce them.

Patreon takes 25% and adds a ton of promotion work for creators. Just like YouTube, it all comes down to creators working for the platform. Smash that like button, subscribe and don’t forget to hit that notification bell to make sure you don’t miss any episodes as they drop…