Trust me i have zero love for Coprs like Disney et al however you state
And why shouldn’t a comp charge people for content? they produce esp as at of day you have choice not to watch
thats the beautiful thing about choice vs being forced
any content download via n99 is YOURS to do with what you DESIRE
“A music library sold to the public: we make most of our money by selling monthly memberships to the general public at Magnatune.com. Musicians get 50% of the $15 monthly fee, based on what each member downloads. Every time someone downloads your album, you get paid. As this is our main business, this is good money” What about this model is free?
art - music - creation is in essence both a service and a product. Musicians can for example be a service eg to help fill a venue - collaborate in other creative fields eg artist / musician colaborating to produce a new creative piece of content - to being music backdrop for a wedding / football game etc - why make it an service vs product? When i create a painting from the initial concept via the pencil on paper to the oil on canvas let alone the many many hours spent perfecting the skill and finally arriving at the point of learning when to say this is done time to walk away the final stroke is me as an artist signing that piece of art - all the time knowledge and skills that have gone into producing this then i am supposed to not have choice to say its a product of my time energy skills?
For artists in the period before the modern era (before about 1800 or so), the process of selling art was different than it is now. In the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance works of art were commissioned, that is, they were ordered by a patron (the person paying for the work of art), and then made to order. A patron usually entered into a contract with an artist that specified how much he would be paid, what kinds of materials would be used, how long it would take to complete, and what the subject of the work would be.
Not what we would consider artistic freedom—but it did have its advantages. You didn’t paint something and then just hope it would sell, the way artists often do now.
Jan van Eyck, The Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele, oil on wood, 141 x 176.5 cm (including frame), 1434-36 (Groeningemuseum, Bruges)
Patrons often asked to be included in the painting they commissioned. When patrons appear in a painting we usually refer to them as donors. In this painting, the donor is shown kneeling on the right before the Virgin Mary and the Christ Child. Jan van Eyck, The Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele, oil on wood, 141 x 176.5 cm (including frame), 1434-36 (Groeningemuseum, Bruges).
What was the status of the artist before the modern era?
One way to understand this is to think about what you “order” to have made for you today. A pizza comes to mind—ordered from the cook at the local pizza parlor—“I’ll have a large pie with pepperoni,” or a birthday cake from a baker “I’d like a chocolate cake with mocha icing and blue letters that say ‘Happy Birthday Jerry.’” Or perhaps you ordered a set of bookshelves from a carpenter, or a wedding dress from a seamstress?
Does our culture consider cooks and carpenters to be as high in their status as lawyers or doctors (remember I’m not asking what we think, but what value our culture generally gives to those professions)? Our culture creates a distinction that we sometimes refer to as “blue collar” work versus “white collar” work.
In the Middle Ages and even for much of the Renaissance, the artist was seen as someone who worked with his hands—they were considered skilled laborers, craftsmen, or artisans. This was something that Renaissance artists fought fiercely against. They wanted, understandably, to be considered as thinkers and innovators. And during the Renaissance the status of the artist does change dramatically, but it would take centuries for successful artists to gain the extremely high status we grant to “art stars” today (for example, Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons, or Damien Hirst).
What we value has changed?
Simone Martini, The Annunciation, 1333, tempera on panel, 72 1/2 x 82 5/8" or 184 x 210 cm. (Uffizi, Florence)
Medieval paintings were often sumptuous objects made with gold and other precious materials. What made these paintings valuable were these materials (blue, for example, was often made from the rare and expensive semi-precious stone, Lapis Lazuli). These materials were lavished on objects to express religious devotion or to reflect the wealth and status of its patron. Today the value of a painting is often the result of something entirely different. Picasso could have painted on a napkin and it would have been incredibly valuable just because it was by Picasso—art is now an expression of the artist and materials often have little to do with the worth of the art.
in essence this is a wider debate that has roots many hundreds of years ago at time of patrons and countless middle men a time or elite aristocratic class who spent much time an money in building a paradigm they desired - to paint them the art they desired - artist were nothing more than a service there to do bidding they desired [ not to say the chosen artists werent at times greatly rewarded ] then came the guttenburg press and all the following steps that lead to of which artists taking ownership of their art began.
Perhaps the use of language was misleading, Copyright for creative content (art / music / literature etc) innately belongs to the person who created it (i.e. the artists) in all jurisdictions. Exploitation of artists in the past has occurred when they have signed over their copyright to the record company / agent in return for financial advances to fund recording / tours / promotion etc. Some high profile examples are: Paul McCartney purchasing back the copyright to his tracks decades later for exorbitant sums of money and Prince changing his name so that Sony did not have the rights to his as yet unwritten material, Both actions being to counteract naively signing contracts which handed over copyright in their youth. N99 will facilitate enforce ability of copyright for individual content providers not replace it.
If you want to market art then market it as a service and don’t attempt to play an information gate keeper and turn art into a product in the information age. Art can be a product; a service, a gift or a curse AT THE CREATORS DISCRETION, as it always has been. n99 is a service that connects content providers with content consumers in a fun and rewarding way. I would be interested to know how the artists benefit from the free advertising eg magnatune are receiving.?
Why charge vs free?
If it were free to stream etc what to stop a mass bot attack?
X [bot] posts content for free then plays that content draining all the resources of the network.
Aim is make this levy as tiny as possible - this levy for want of a better word will be set to high - the aim in future dev will be to create opportunities for this automatic - eg an A.I which sets levy just above the attack bot price level. In essence when you have crypto token eg Seeds that are rewarded via plays etc then it would be foolish not to consider the possibility of bot attacks or any attack on the networks resources with uttermost consideration.
whos making it illegal?
n99 doesn’t set laws have its army judges etc leave that failed model of laws et al in the current paradigm it failed then will always fail
beauty of choice
we just offer as many opportunities as possible to reward the artists musicians the choice is yours that is the very essence of freedom
This is a very complex question of which seeds is solution [ as discussed prevoiusly ] or for more check out the seeds overview videos
Seeds are in essence are a watermark
As mentioned above vis a via seeds
Trust i covered / answered the scarcity/pay to play streaming and downloading part earlier in this reply
for all the many reason discussed in this reply, we are people I am a person who more than most has flown the flag for decentralization all my life thought back in 93 the internet would be the decentralized paradigm that the few of us flying the flag back then were waiting for however what happened is history a generation sat back voted Blair Corps hi-jacked internet gate keepers got powerful resulting in current paradigm - we can aim for perfection with a mindset of question everything after all we are all living on a rock that tumbles through space #weareallgoingtodie
Does it matter? end of day its about manifesting intent then let people decide that its the duality that is freedom
matter of opinion however your first and only person that has ever called n99 let alone me a sellout and as is in public domian have spent many hours via LIFE IS PEOPLE et al with many many artists - musicians - authors - free thinkers - and never once has anyone called n99 or me a corp sell out it be like saying anyone right of Noem Chomsky is nazi
That is beauty of freedom all opinions welcome and end of day no-one is forcing you to use n99 and the tools are there to build a platform you desire
#Im a not a number i am a free man