Thanks Doug. You touched on an idea that I think I’ve now seen on the Lbry docs as well. You stated,
As they are elected, and have a lot to lose, reputation-wise and therefore economically, by acting in a way that isn’t in the best interest of the network. If they leak your content, then they could lose their valuable job.
The idea underpinning this seems to be one of – if it’s more profitable to contribute legitimate activity, then it discourages illegitimate activity. Or why disrupt and gain less, when I can help and gain more.
As I mentioned Lbry has touched on this also. https://lbry.io/what#combatting-the-ugly
If it is impossible to keep drugs out of prisons, it will never be possible to enforce copyright via analogous tactics on the infinitely less-controlled internet. Instead, focus on enticement. While legal compliance is paramount, concentrate as much as possible on making a system that relies more on giving people no excuse to do the wrong thing.
They also make some interesting points about the durability of the blockchain revealing a record of illegitimate activity (like double publish) and also the idea that content owners still have to protect their works by seeking out violators with available tools and persecuting theft appropriately.
I’m putting together a research package for a commercial entity and this copyright issue is a big concern for them as they work with large studios. The issue is one that they will likely use as a claimed competitive advantage over decentralized content publishing systems like Livepeer. However, If the incentive system and ledger arguments work as characterized it could prove to nullify that claimed advantage. That being said it will take time for fears to subside and the model to prove itself out.