6 ms·

I haven't thought it through much, but on the face of it I like the idea of receiving some compensation whenever my data is _resold_, plus a way for me to see _

I haven't thought it through much, but on the face of it I like the idea of receiving some compensation whenever my data is _resold_, plus a way for me to see _where_ my data has been resold, maybe even a notification. It's a bit like a songwriter receiving a royalty whenever their song is played on the radio or in public (see https://www.prsformusic.com/ https://www.prsformusic.com/). Obviously this would be a challenging thing to implement.

woodrowbarlow 7y ago
here's the way this generally works for music: 1. a musician joins one or more "guilds" and pays dues. there are three major musicians guilds in the US. 2. a public venue pays subscription fees to one or more guilds. 3. the venue is licensed to broadcast music by any of the guilds' members. 4. the guild divides monies from venues proportionally amongst its members, with proportions based largely on the musician's popularity. that model wouldn't work very well for what you're imagining. firstly, it wouldn't give you the access to information that you want about who has your data. secondly, unlike music, user data for advertising purposes doesn't really have differences in value; to an advertiser, data about one person is just as valuable as data about another person. any differences in value have to do with the type of data rather than the source of the data.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  "user data for advertising purposes doesn't really have differences in value; to an advertiser, data about one person is just as valuable as data about another person." That's not really true - there are certain coveted demographics that are worth more than others. In general your value to an advertiser is proportional to how much money you're likely to spend on their product. People with a lot of money are worth more than people without lots of money; people who are likely to spend a lot of money are worth more than people who will save it all; young people are worth more than old people (they have more years of purchases ahead of them); socially connected people are worth more than loners (they influence the buying decisions of others); and people who are easy to influence are worth more than cynics. Also certain industries have very high revenue potential, while others don't; this is why a click on [mesothelioma] or [auto insurance] can fetch over $50, while a click on [f2p games] might be a dollar or two at most. In old-line (print & TV advertising) they could only determine this in various broad strokes (which is why you'd hear about the coveted 18-34 demographic, or pay more for primetime TV than daytime TV). On the Internet you can divide this up in much greater detail.
- sideshowb 7y ago
  5. The guild samples very sparsely so smaller musicians receive no compensation 6. Smaller musicians often arrange their own events and thus have to pay licensing fees to for the privilege of playing their own music, which as the guild doesn't sample the event, is not returned to the musician Yeah, works well.

woodrowbarlow 7y ago

here's the way this generally works for music: 1. a musician joins one or more "guilds" and pays dues. there are three major musicians guilds in the US. 2. a public venue pays subscription fees to one or more guilds. 3. the venue is licensed to broadcast music by any of the guilds' members. 4. the guild divides monies from venues proportionally amongst its members, with proportions based largely on the musician's popularity. that model wouldn't work very well for what you're imagining. firstly, it wouldn't give you the access to information that you want about who has your data. secondly, unlike music, user data for advertising purposes doesn't really have differences in value; to an advertiser, data about one person is just as valuable as data about another person. any differences in value have to do with the type of data rather than the source of the data.

nostrademons 7y ago
"user data for advertising purposes doesn't really have differences in value; to an advertiser, data about one person is just as valuable as data about another person." That's not really true - there are certain coveted demographics that are worth more than others. In general your value to an advertiser is proportional to how much money you're likely to spend on their product. People with a lot of money are worth more than people without lots of money; people who are likely to spend a lot of money are worth more than people who will save it all; young people are worth more than old people (they have more years of purchases ahead of them); socially connected people are worth more than loners (they influence the buying decisions of others); and people who are easy to influence are worth more than cynics. Also certain industries have very high revenue potential, while others don't; this is why a click on [mesothelioma] or [auto insurance] can fetch over $50, while a click on [f2p games] might be a dollar or two at most. In old-line (print & TV advertising) they could only determine this in various broad strokes (which is why you'd hear about the coveted 18-34 demographic, or pay more for primetime TV than daytime TV). On the Internet you can divide this up in much greater detail.
sideshowb 7y ago
5. The guild samples very sparsely so smaller musicians receive no compensation 6. Smaller musicians often arrange their own events and thus have to pay licensing fees to for the privilege of playing their own music, which as the guild doesn't sample the event, is not returned to the musician Yeah, works well.