Poetry Forum

Full Version: Peter Sunde's Upcoming Project -> Flattr
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

mrmod

Flattr




TorrentFreak Wrote:The Internet has brought us a tool to share and consume content, but up until now there has been no really easy way for the consuming side to reward content producers. Flattr, a new venture started by The Pirate Bay’s former spokesman Peter Sunde, opts to change this.

Flattr has been in development since 2007 and finally opened up in Beta this week. It is best described as a mashup between social content discovery sites such as Digg, Reddit and Stumbleupon, and an online payment service like Paypal.

“It’s a new revenue stream for people who share their content! It’s a combination of a donation system and a quality list of interesting content online,” said Peter Sunde describing the service to TorrentFreak.

Users who join the site can use it to discover interesting articles, great music and useful software, like on the aforementioned social discovery sites. If they see something they like they can give it a thumbs up, which is nothing new either.

The innovative part is that users of Flattr set a monthly budget they are willing to donate each month to the content they like. This can be as low as $2, or whatever the user is willing to share. At the end of the month the money is shared between the creators of the content they liked, who are all Flattr users as well.

In other words, Flattr allows consumers to flatter content producers for a flat-rate fee, and offers a revenue stream to those who create and share content.

The idea behind Flattr is innovative, but for the service to be a success the user base has to be significant. If Sunde and friends succeed in that they have an ideal solution to pay off the people who share their work for free.

Those who want to give Flattr a try can sign up for a Beta invite.

Ketchup Sauce

Do you think it's a good idea Idea? And most of all, do you think it will work?
hard to answer dan.

i'm all for giving if you want but who decides who gets what and who handles the cash?lots of room for skulduggery and skimming.
(02-18-2010, 08:39 AM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]If a concept such as this succeeds, some big player, such as PayPal, will want to buy it.
I think brokep has a cool idea here. If it flies, he could make millions selling the firm.
i agree, it's a good business model but i don't think any site where you have to have a minimum up front payment scheme is pirate worthy.

fair play to him if he makes it fly but it will be flying without me Tongue it strikes me of itunes and yep paypal or someone else will want in or to purchase it if it works.

mrmod

(02-18-2010, 12:22 PM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-18-2010, 08:39 AM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]If a concept such as this succeeds, some big player, such as PayPal, will want to buy it.
I think brokep has a cool idea here. If it flies, he could make millions selling the firm.

i agree, it's a good business model but i don't think any site where you have to have a minimum up front payment scheme is pirate worthy.

fair play to him if he makes it fly but it will be flying without me Tongue it strikes me of itunes and yep paypal or someone else will want in or to purchase it if it works.

I hope it will work. But it needs majour artists/developers to kick it off. Not to mention users. But he's gotta have faith and patience. Sounds like a good idea to me Confusedleepy:

Katkwaraye

So, users would be able to donate to other users and share content which they've created themselves?
lmao at kat;

something like that. whoever uploads gets a payment.

doesn't it remind you of the group who was going to take over tpb and the plans they had.

seems to be a very similar business model. mmmm
hey,hey,i never thought of that
(02-20-2010, 01:28 AM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]If millions of users pay in (the leechers), and hundreds of thousands get paid (the uploaders) 30 days later, then the organization collecting the money and sitting on the cash float, should be in control of a tidy sum.
plenty of room to do the; it cost so much to do this and that scenario.
if i remember rightly many screamed when the takeover bid was made for this very reason.

you only have to look at how much the tools of the media moguls get paid; the lawyers and other agencies etc. sorry, but it's not something i'd take part in.

and why should we. will pirates give up free in order to pay? most already think they pay for what they like when they do buy a cd or watch a movie. those who will donate, probably already donate. (or use itunes lmao)

mrmod

(02-20-2010, 09:03 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]and why should we. will pirates give up free in order to pay? most already think they pay for what they like when they do buy a cd or watch a movie. those who will donate, probably already donate. (or use itunes lmao)

I don't think the project is about needing to give to get the product. It's about wanting to give because you appreciate what the developer/artist created Confusedleepy:
(02-20-2010, 10:34 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-20-2010, 09:03 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]and why should we. will pirates give up free in order to pay? most already think they pay for what they like when they do buy a cd or watch a movie. those who will donate, probably already donate. (or use itunes lmao)
I don't think the project is about needing to give to get the product. It's about wanting to give because you appreciate what the developer/artist created Confusedleepy:

thats called marketing.Dodgy either way your giving.
if you want to give now you can usually get an email if you ask. many sites have donate buttons etc. and i think they said a flat rate ranging from x to whatever you wanted to give. i take that to mean that $2 is the lowest.

The innovative part is that users of Flattr set a monthly budget they are willing to donate each month to the content they like. This can be as low as $2, or whatever the user is willing to share. At the end of the month the money is shared between the creators of the content they liked, who are all Flattr users as well.
(02-20-2010, 02:08 PM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]You should participate, not just criticize.
nope. i won't be forced by anyone to pay for filesharing.
i'll seed and thats all they'll get from me.
all it is, is a business venture where some people use the pretext of piracy to make money. why the fuck can't the artist just have a donate button??????
how is that so hard. why do we need someone raking in extremely large amounts and sharing it out. why should my donation or part of it go to some shit artist i can't standHuh sorry but i don't think they thought it through to be fair, i think they thought it threw to make money. i think the offer that was made to them whetted their appetite for cash. (and thats cool, i don't blame them) but basically i think what they suggest is:wanker:
(02-20-2010, 02:22 PM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]Then you will not contribute to brokep's success.
while i will applaud his fiscal dexterity i won't be contributing financially.

so that's a definite no. not on a scheme like the one he hopes to use.
i'm presuming he wanted to to whatever it was he did and if what he says was true, expects no reward. i know i'm not running a site to make money. i think if i put my mind to it i could but it's not me.

sorry vf but for me it doesn't smell right.

come on, if he wants to see uploaders and contributors get paid how hard would it be to set up a site that has a donate button on everyone's user cp ?

why should he or anyone else decide who gets what from the amalgamated funds. just do it separately. it's not that hard to do. i wasn't keen when it was mentioned that they'll need millions of downloaders to make it worthwhile.

Katkwaraye

I'm not sure if I'm willing to compromise. But this is probably the best deal you can get, if it works.
(02-21-2010, 01:21 AM)Katkwaraye Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure if I'm willing to compromise. But this is probably the best deal you can get, if it works.
you can get a similar deal from many places on the net. opt ins for 2 dollars a month or more etc. the thing is they'll only be able to host the music of people who sign up.
those lesser named bands etc whose no ones heard of will pretty much remain unheard of. i can't see the music companies allowing their artist to sign up. so you'll be left with indies and the like. you may get some good stuff but in the main it'll be shit.

my question is this. why pay 2 or 10 dollars a month when you can download for free and buy a cd if you like it? or not depending on wealth and tightfistedness. all it is, is a cheaper version of itunes. (if it works)

mrmod

(02-21-2010, 07:59 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-21-2010, 01:21 AM)Katkwaraye Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure if I'm willing to compromise. But this is probably the best deal you can get, if it works.
you can get a similar deal from many places on the net. opt ins for 2 dollars a month or more etc. the thing is they'll only be able to host the music of people who sign up.
those lesser named bands etc whose no ones heard of will pretty much remain unheard of. i can't see the music companies allowing their artist to sign up. so you'll be left with indies and the like. you may get some good stuff but in the main it'll be shit.

my question is this. why pay 2 or 10 dollars a month when you can download for free and buy a cd if you like it? or not depending on wealth and tightfistedness. all it is, is a cheaper version of itunes. (if it works)

I don't think so. Because for $2 you can't get a CD. But you could get an unlimited amount of things. And your fraction of the $2 goes straight to the artist. Not lost in some record company who'll spend it on lawyers to sue you later on...
(02-21-2010, 08:22 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-21-2010, 07:59 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-21-2010, 01:21 AM)Katkwaraye Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure if I'm willing to compromise. But this is probably the best deal you can get, if it works.
you can get a similar deal from many places on the net. opt ins for 2 dollars a month or more etc. the thing is they'll only be able to host the music of people who sign up.
those lesser named bands etc whose no ones heard of will pretty much remain unheard of. i can't see the music companies allowing their artist to sign up. so you'll be left with indies and the like. you may get some good stuff but in the main it'll be shit.

my question is this. why pay 2 or 10 dollars a month when you can download for free and buy a cd if you like it? or not depending on wealth and tightfistedness. all it is, is a cheaper version of itunes. (if it works)
I don't think so. Because for $2 you can't get a CD. But you could get an unlimited amount of things. And your fraction of the $2 goes straight to the artist. Not lost in some record company who'll spend it on lawyers to sue you later on...
and which artists are these? and remember i did also say when you can download for free btw you can get one here for 2 dollarsWink

and we presume it goes straight to the artist. people thought that of itunes at first. somehow i can't see all or even many of the top artist signing up for it. they simply won't be allowed to. come on people. you think if the recoding companies would agree to that. surely if they thought it was a worth while venture they'd do the same thing themselves?
no, the record labels don't care about the artist as long as they can make off them. letting them do the two dollar download as much as you can shit is just a big fat no no.

mrmod

(02-21-2010, 08:40 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-21-2010, 08:22 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-21-2010, 07:59 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-21-2010, 01:21 AM)Katkwaraye Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure if I'm willing to compromise. But this is probably the best deal you can get, if it works.
you can get a similar deal from many places on the net. opt ins for 2 dollars a month or more etc. the thing is they'll only be able to host the music of people who sign up.
those lesser named bands etc whose no ones heard of will pretty much remain unheard of. i can't see the music companies allowing their artist to sign up. so you'll be left with indies and the like. you may get some good stuff but in the main it'll be shit.

my question is this. why pay 2 or 10 dollars a month when you can download for free and buy a cd if you like it? or not depending on wealth and tightfistedness. all it is, is a cheaper version of itunes. (if it works)

I don't think so. Because for $2 you can't get a CD. But you could get an unlimited amount of things. And your fraction of the $2 goes straight to the artist. Not lost in some record company who'll spend it on lawyers to sue you later on...

and which artists are these? and remember i did also say when you can download for free btw you can get one here for 2 dollarsWink

and we presume it goes straight to the artist. people thought that of itunes at first. somehow i can't see all or even many of the top artist signing up for it. they simply won't be allowed to. come on people. you think if the recoding companies would agree to that. surely if they thought it was a worth while venture they'd do the same thing themselves?
no, the record labels don't care about the artist as long as they can make off them. letting them do the two dollar download as much as you can shit is just a big fat no no.

I guess it's just different view points. Peter Sunde believes that you can't really thank the creator or help him in any way.Not just getting a song. Just like donating.. So he's suggesting a way. I hope it works anyway
i've said before i'll say it again.
for those artists that are allowed to let their music get played on a site outside their label.

all they have to is place a donate button on their site. it quite an easy thing to do really.

in sunds business model people donate and he shares it out, whats the difference? the difference is he'll be making cash of the ads which means he'll be making money off teh artists and off the members for basically running a service that already exists. it's very clever.

i wish sund well with his venture. but i won't be participating in it.