Pay to href – Royalty software – makes internet content pay
Do you go online and wish that those annoying pop-up ads would pop off? Do you wish that your site did not have to rely on advertising just for you to survive? Do you find it depressing that others use the information on your page but yet never click the Donate button? Do you run a blog and put a lot into it only to find the costs run amok and funds run away so you wonder how long it can realistically stay online?
Are you quite prepared to pay for the kit to access the information that – ironically – you are not prepared to pay for – you expect to continue to get this for free? Are you profiting from technology sales but are not supporting those that are the incentive for these sales, the desired information that draws your customers in? Are you finding that increased traffic to your site with spiraling costs related to that only to find you pay for your popularity and someone else gains financially for it? Are you a paid paper publication finding the transition to an online presence simply does not pay – so see quality give way to trash as investment in researched information becomes an elite preserve?
Help is at hand! In the form on a new hypertext protocol! This is it:
To timbl@w3.org, clareeakingston@hotmail.co.uk
| Sent: | 31 July 2007 11:09:18 |
Dear Tim Berners-Lee,
I’ve been an ideas person for a while now. On my website @ orionparty.org you can see an idea I had for Web TV, which was initially used by Microsoft using the same font and colours as the original presentational format. I’ve had other inventions e.g. my transport system idea on site, where cars are driven by computers. I went to a few of Inventors Fairs in the 1990s where I met Trevor Baylis and was invited back to his house. We went round discerning whether so called innovations were really new, plausible (perpetual motion machines) or were they fantastic or really good. I’d love to work with the Consortium on these ideas following in this e-mail as it would be really lovely to be paid for my work so I could afford to work on other ideas for other people and causes of urgent concern. I do have a, what I perceive as simple, solution to the Earth Challenge as proposed by Al Gore and Richard Branson but I am afraid to release it freely, from previous experience, and from the feeling I’d really like people to know it was me who saved them. Pop Stars are famous, Innovation and Information Providers should be too and Prosper as they do. I am not alone in these feelings or a sense that the Fair Trade principle really must apply on-line if we are ever to keep our forests and all the little creatures that live there too.
Yours sincerely,
Clare Elizabeth Angela Kingston
We have recently seen a huge concert in Aid of the Earth, to save its vital expendable resources. Trees are a very important part of that, and information provided on them is probably currently the most prolific medium for such information communication. The reason that this is the case is very basic. Words read on trees rather than flowing through electricity attract a royalty or an advance. Reading editions of Private Eye recently it can be seen that advances for well known faces are seriously disproportionate to their resulting sales, and yet promising possibilities are often overlooked. J.K. Rowling had many rejections for her first book, and the first print run was only 500 books, the majority of these going to public libraries, where if they are logged correctly attract a small payment, relatively minoral in comparison to the book production cost and sale price. There is, also, I believe an upper limit that can be received per book, I found the last time I checked.
When you buy newspapers or magazines you often only purchase them for one article, a specific picture you fancy or the freebee CD on the cover. You chuck the rest away and feel 2 things : That it was a swizz that you had to pay for all that stuff you did not read or need and conversely ironically : that you wouldn’t have minded paying more for less, for just what you wanted, plus perhaps more pictures you liked or another CD compatible to your taste and mood right now. Something lighter yet brighter, more compact, solid and substantial. The trouble is most periodicals do not make their money from articles, but it is that the articles attract you to the advertising, which in reality funds the paper. Advertising can be really good and excellently creative, but it can also be an irritant, particularly on-line, when it demands to dominate the screen.
Editorial control is also important, artist freedom and immediacy – getting the stuff out with a reasonable timeframe between creation and production, and being able to freely flow your career to suit all sorts of things.
Space and capacity in breadth and depth is another. Storing all your music files, alongside all the films you had viewed, and the books you had read, somewhere where you could easily find them, and to be able to share without loss your stimuli with friends, would be beautiful and give you more room to breathe at home, a de-cluttering similar to the simplification of the 1920s. It is also possible to share your own work with others and perhaps grow in reputation. Barcodes and other security data i.e. on what is on which page and other drop down or short answer options for older books or music material. The focus for royalties would be on alive authors, the dead ones providing funding to supply computers and information credits to the less wealthy and currently unconnected. A surrender of your book would be required to obtain free access to it on-line perpetually, it could be sent anywhere or recycled. An arrangement for retainance could be come to for ancient and valuable books to preserve their physicality for posterity.
There is an all pervading attitude of freeloading in society, it is almost aristocratically expected by many that you should provide ideas and information for free. Those that sell the access to that information or the equipment to enable that information to be seen, profit from it. If that information were not there then there would be no point in purchasing such artefacts or access. And yet web site providers from internet encyclopedii down are constantly in the charity mode of asking support for their sites from viewers, the more visitors the greater the costs incurred, and some sites (which may be well utilized) fold or close up completely. This isn’t very logical. Also quality or sense can be compromised. More serious videos may be made for sites that operate a see what you like television medium, and greater fairness to the media provider, those with a great hit rate attract no reward, neither does the operation, which does not allow those with talent to further invest time in their art. Also it would be good for current professional television program providers to attain their funding more freely from those that benefit from their work more directly, giving them content control, and giving licence payers fairness as shareholders, in that information provided on-line is not subject to the same regulatory tyranny imposed on those too poor to buy a computer. There is probably more information on the website than that which is broadcast. Those that need to feed in ad breaks to fund their provision would well find it better, less complicated, more secure and therefore feel able to up their quality in their output. And due to the longer term nature of royalties they could invest in riskier subject material. Sense and reason are lacking in the sense that people are prepared to pay real money for virtual property or no real world gain, and yet a knowledge boost to your real life they would expect for nothing. University professors do not rate the internet because of quite rational reasons. They feel their livelihoods are on the line because of it, which if income was derivory would exorcise that problem. They get paid in their training students and providing publications under their university banner. A presentation payment would encourage very much more interesting output on-line, and also be what you meant the web to be at its birth. I do think it would be reasonable, as an innovator myself, for you to obtain a nominal fee for each access, so you could use these funds to give computers to the poor, if you wished to, in your own name, you deserve this credit, even if the patent law may state it was in the course of your work, what you have done is extraordinary to that. I would love to view journal standard material, from time to time, without having to sign up to extensive expensive annual rates. Many universities struggle with multi journal provision, and have to make tough choices. The student viewer could have a credit account, added to long term loaning to see this stuff. They do after all pay exorbitantly for huge textbooks where many pages are never read, up front, and these are hard to carry, or store in small living quarters. Also if you see a good journal article whilst at University and want access to its good quality information after you have left after completion of your studies this isn’t an easy feat, and you start to feel starved of good quality info-food. Here I propose a satisfactory solution to this and those problems I have posed. And for others I have left out in this edition :
I start by detailing
Royalty Rates
Code Thoughts
Ratioing
I then go on to explain how this could work in operational terms.
Nominal = N
Reasonable = R
Substantial = S
Expensive = E
<A HREF= “payto: [INTERNATIONAL BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER] ></A>
Ratios in payto
payto:____:
^
Ratio number
Null Value (0) and no other payto entries = 100%
e.g. “payto:0:IBAN”
This means one individual gets all the money donated, it is not divided in any way.
More than one entry: e.g.
“payto:25:IBAN:30:IBAN:10:IBAN:5:IBAN:5:IBAN:5:IBAN”
Each page requires its own separate payto reference and its individual ratioing.
Default Value for every web page is N100.
There are these values available for each category:
N : 1-100
R : 1-1000
S : 1-10000000
E : 1-1000000000
The reason you need more values for higher amounts for ratioing is that these will invariably have the greater possibility to have been created by more individuals- this enables all these individuals to be fairly paid by getting a slice of the cake that equates to a worthwhile sum. Note this is the range of possibility 1 to 1000 for Reasonable for example so if 3 individuals contributed, 1 twice as much as the others this is 3 in total with a ratio 2:1:1 you would calculate 1000/4=250 so “payto:500:IBAN:250:IBAN:250:IBAN”
The statement of rates gives the consumer of the information how much this visit is going to cost – noted on the web address bar that shows as you know [as /N15, /R20, /S6, /E3] at the end of this so you can decide whether to click in or not and this information available prior to seeing the site page. Different pages can attract different payment requirements.
Nominal could = 100 being 1 cent so you could pay at N1 a 100th of 1 cent – useful for paying just to keep the information up there but no more
Reasonable = 10 cents – which is a more reasonable rate for information, so the information provider is likely to make a reasonable sum for their work without deterring visitors, particularly when new.
Substantial = 1 dollar for the information – could be a whole book, which you put a lot of work into and we all are entitled to make a living from our work.
Expensive being 10 dollars it all adds up for an exclusive, say a film release on it’s Premier first day to view.
Each web page will open up and the Value will display as a stamp on an envelope of a letter, in the traditional place, top right hand corner, so as not to annoy the web page design layout, but will be the first information available to see.
e.g.s N30, R77, S2, E3.
so N = 30% of a cent R = 770 cents S = 2 dollars E = 30 dollars
RATE=“N30” , RATE=“R77” , RATE=“S2” , RATE=“E3”
This will be the amount that is transferred into your payto account / accounts. It will be possible to view the Currency Amounts these Values correspond to on-line, and have automatic updates e-mailed to you.
The funds will be phished (fishing data) from the internet access data you hold on each Individual Computer or Internet Accessing Device, so as you view you are responsible to pay. If you don’t have the funds you won’t be able to view the site. Phishing will be done via an internet accessing window that you will, from the point that the W3 Consortium decides it, need to have downloaded to your Control Panel, and also filled in there. As the Internet viewing program opens up, it will also locate and acknowledge this data file Icon and all its contents, and ask you your User Name where you will give your password and the Account Number you wish to use for this time of accessing (scroll down). The User Name will be computer specific, so a more understood range of options are keyable. There is the possibility of a visitor semi-option, where the visitor pays a proportion of site visit costs. The main user will need to open an account first which will cover the parameters stated on the visitor log-on. These may be that the main user pays only a nominal amount each time. More information will be required of the Visitor, whose details will be stored on the Main User’s computer. The Visitor will not be able to erase the details, but once the visitor logs off, their password will delete, rendering further usage of the details impossible, and all the other details will be sent to a security mainframe linked to both the Main User’s file and Sub-Linked to similar sounding and similar account number holding Files in this Mainframe.
This Window and the Internet Accessing Window will need to be opened up prior to the connection being “dialled-up”. In Broadband scenarios you would only be able to view received or downloaded file data / files when logged on. Downloading can occur e.g. in a large file format, whilst your account details are not in view, but to see it you would confirm the same details as you gave to get it sent. So in a shared computer experience a downloaded for e.g. MP3 file would only be viewable or audible by the original purchaser of the information, this would be encoded into the download. The exception would be accepted gift download source types for e.g. Internet Telephony or Video Calls, as this is a free give and receive format, and both parties are donating equal server service time and bandwidth, there is no external effected user cost. However these will be data-viewed via a Remote Non-Human audible Robot for data patterns that do not conform to standard tracking patterns i.e. if they are in reality uploading data to contacts. This data will then be watched, and, if successful, charged 50:50 to both parties. Gift transfers will be kept for checking for a pre-decided period of time, this will be diversely discernable based on the wide variety of factors and file formats that can occur.
With this system it has the advantage that you will only need one username and password to key in prior to connecting, you will not need to be a member to attain information, or therefore to retain multiple pass name information. This also allows maximum technical efficiency of the internet world wide as the band width will not be road hogged by broad band users who have calling packages which currently make it free to put a site on-hold for others by providing an unnecessary bulk of current users. A Nominal payment will make the Web more of a free flowing spider, untrapped. A speedy seeker and finder, hunting and delivering information fast.
Web T.V. :
“Now that anyone can access the web though a television, even the most computer-phobic want to know what’s out there. Fox provides an irreverent tour of cyberspace, well suited to those more comfortable with a remote control than a keyboard. His wise guidance begins at the proper place–a brief discussion of what the web is and how it relates to surfing via television. He offers assistance on buying and hooking up the WebTV box. Only then does he ease the reader into how to start having some fun online. He takes his time, explaining the controls in a simple, friendly manner and gradually guiding the reader on the connections available from the home page. Before long, he has painlessly opened up the world of e-mail and has the reader on a tour of some of the most enjoyable sites in cyberspace. A huge chunk of the book focuses on specific places to go and things to do, including entertainment sites, business areas, educational opportunities and almost everything that computerized web-surfing families have enjoyed for so long. You can’t ask for a more painless introduction to life online.”
This is more like what I had in mind of what Web T.V. should be like in the future in 1997 – this is today’s screen print of a web t.v. provider in 2013.
Obviously using your t.v. for surfing is excellent and I have imagined since I was a child a wall in your home where you could make video calls, communicate in typing and watch more than one channel at a time, in the 90s I wanted to be able to watch all the t.v. channels from all over the world at the time I decided.
The government’s plans to tax online TV viewers with a “Universal Household Charge” is not supported by Irish TV viewers, according to a survey by broadband provider Magnet Networks.
The survey found that some 60% of the Irish population did not support the introduction of the charge which has been proposed as a means of combating the falling number of broadcast TV viewers.
Speaking in early April The Minister for Communications, Pat Rabbitte, announced that “[the] notion of some kind of universal household charge might well be worth considering” as a replacement for the current TV licence. http://sociable.co/technology/more-people-watching-tv-online-but-little-support-for-universal-household-charge/ May 8, 2011 – 12:08 am GMT
My version of Web T.V. online in 1997: http://www.orionparty.org/webtv.htm the colour scheme is there (at some point later I co-ordinated the site to give headings the same colour scheme but the rest is as it was at the start) The font is Times New Roman Bold
Web T.V.
This includes a serious case to make the licence fee history. To encourage people into the new technology , via a national computer renting scheme which is very detailed so people get exactly what they want e.g. Education Software , NetPhone , Games Equipment etc. The hardware and software for the individual user will be specifically configured to their exact wants and needs. The standard average payment for this will be about £10 a month. Land T.V. would be free. BBC 1 would be where BBC 1 & BBC 2 programmes would go, sponsored by company sponsored slots or the lottery and therefore would contain no advertisements. BBC 2 will be used to show internet pages for free and also to educate people into the new technology.
WEB T.V. would be paid via 2 methods. Access i.e. you dial up the programme number and you pay a certain amount. Also information could be paid for via integrated royalty software. So the longer you view , The more you pay. Each individual programme could have its own royalty rate, films etc. would cost more , ancient repeats hardly anything at all. You would know before viewing the programme / information how much it will cost you.
Music , Poetry , Visual Art , Museum Tours , Tutorial Assistance , Radio Broadcasts and Concerts , Plays etc. are just a small number of examples of beneficiaries to WEB T.V. It is a much fairer and better way to support a wider spectrum of media. And moreover the media can control itself , without interference of producers who think they know best, although with current evidence one is not so sure. And the viewer can watch a programme when it suits them and not miss any due to daft competition by current broadcasters where they put programmes of a similar nature at the same time as each other. So it is better value for money overall. You get a life. You can control what you see on T.V. rather than the T.V. controlling your life.
Examples of Web T.V. using current technology :
| http://www.earthcam.com/ |
| http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1080/nasacams.html |
| http://www.perceptualrobotics.com/ |
| http://www.lard.com |
| http://www.jennicam.org |
Links to information i.e. electronic news etc. :
| http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ |
| http://www.the-times.co.uk/ |
| http://www.mirror.co.uk |
| http://www.enews.com/ |
| http://www.itn.co.uk/ |
I feel with a national renting scheme technology will move forward fast. e.g. The view screen area will more swiftly cover a wall, making it more possible to read broadsheet newspapers this way, at a font size large enough to be comfortable. And using headphone technology all members of a family can watch many programmes all on one screen together happily.
e-mail me to say what you think
If you would like to have a link to your site from this page contact me. I would like to start up applicable advertising on each policy area. See what suits what you do. Once organisations start to fund link presence on site, these will be the only ones present, to be fair.
Also See http://beacon.webtv.net