“Q9: That sounds great when you frame it in the context of individual artists but it could also be used by big corporations to force people to pay every time they want to watch their favourite cartoon or episode, or whatever. n99 could easily become the new model for TV. If I download something I want to own it. I want to be able to load it on my phone, mp3 player, put it on an external hard drive, make amvs out of it, whatever.
A9: 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.”
You are being evasive here and do not actually answer the question. Cool you are cutting out the middle man. I no longer need a publishing house. You are essentially promoting mass self publishing. Awesome. That does not answer the question stated. The question was about wanting to own one’s data. if I buy a CD I want to be in control of that data. I don’t want you to come into my house and take away the CD because YOU feel like you still own it. If I download a piece of music or art I don’t want you to remotely delete it because YOU feel like you still own it. That isn’t ownership that’s RENTING. If an artist retains ownership of art AFTER someone pays for it then it isn’t a purchase it’s a rent agreement. I don’t want to RENT art I want to BUY it. If I buy a statue to put on my lawn or a painting to hang on my wall I don’t want the artist that painted it to send in the repo guys at some random moment. Who owns the art? The one who created it or the one who paid for it?
The problem with digital art is that it can be infinitely copied. But see in order to transfer it you need it to be decrypted. You may be able to watermark at file on the safe network. But a) If it’s visually watermarked it will lose value. b) if it’s watermarked using metadata all the user has to do is download it, change it ever so slightly then reupload it to the SAFE network. It will be a totally NEW file without a watermark and free to be pirated.
Which again begs the question: By promoting copyright how are you different than a corporation? As you are still vunerable to the SAME issues corporations are. it doesn’t matter if the artist is indie or a corporate label. If their material is copyrighted and someone prevents one from doing what they want to do it’s all the same. Why would the name on the label matter?
“A10: 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.”
So you’re saying it’s entirely up to the artist. Fair enough. But code still = politics.