When did you first recognise that digital media lacked an ownership layer?

A: I first saw the cracks emerge while serving as General Manager and later Executive Director of the then-listed Motion Picture Company of Australia Limited from 2002 to 2005. The industry was moving from 35mm film, CDs and DVDs to MP3s, digital files and streaming. As instant online delivery took hold, I realised that digital media lacked a durable ownership layer—and that gaps in legacy contracts could leave creators exposed.

Digital distribution was often not expressly addressed in agreements written for physical formats, creating disputes over how royalties should apply. In my view, that ambiguity allowed value to shift away from the people who created the work. It convinced me that creators needed clearer, more durable infrastructure to record rights, permissions and economic participation as technology evolved.

When formats change, creators’ rights should not disappear.

SMP is intended to carry those rights forward through clearer records of ownership, permission and authorised economic participation.

What have you personally witnessed creators, talent or audiences lose under the existing system?

A: I have known professional creators forced to live in their cars while waiting for royalties. I have lent money to talent for a family funeral while they were told the cheque was “in the mail”. These are not abstract failures; they have immediate human consequences.

The imbalance extends beyond professionals. Full-time creators, UGC hobbyists and people sharing family moments routinely accept sweeping platform terms because meaningful alternatives are scarce. The prevailing model is extraction: if a platform is not capturing value from creative work, it is often capturing value from personal data. Generative AI has intensified the concern, as work may be used for training without clear consent, compensation or accountability. Individual creators rarely have the resources to challenge the largest technology companies.

Permission must be explicit. Participation must be fair. Responsibility must be unavoidable.

SMP is intended to translate those principles into shared infrastructure for recording consent, defining participation and making authorised actions accountable.

In one sentence, what should a person genuinely control?

A: A person should genuinely control their digital footprint, identity, and the economic value generated by their creative output, without relying on central platforms as intermediaries.

Which economic relationship should change first — and how?

A: The first economic relationship I want to change is the one among the rightsholder, the fan and an authorised secondary transaction. Today, creators may participate in the initial sale while later value is captured by platforms or marketplaces. Clear transfer and payment rules should travel with the entitlement rather than depend on fragmented post-sale reconciliation.

SMP proposes a shared settlement function through which an issuer could define how value is allocated when a permitted transfer occurs. A film pass, limited music release or event ticket could apply agreed payment rules consistently across participating applications, subject to contract, consumer rights and law.

This would not create demand, guarantee income or make every asset transferable. Its purpose is narrower: when a valid transaction occurs, the agreed economics should be clear, verifiable and applied without unnecessary manual reconciliation.

Creators should not lose their place in the value chain after the first sale.

SMP is intended to support that principle by linking permitted transfers to transparent, issuer-defined settlement rules.

What legitimate roles should studios, distributors and platforms retain?

A: Studios, distributors and platforms remain essential. They fund ambitious work, manage complex rights, market releases and help audiences discover culture. Their strongest role is to compete through curation, service and user experience—not exclusive control of the only ownership record.

The architecture I am proposing separates shared infrastructure from the customer interface. SMP would provide common mechanisms for holders, permissions and authorised settlement, while institutions retain the application layer and their direct relationships with customers.

That separation must prove practical value. If shared records can reduce reconciliation, improve rights clarity and support better experiences, institutions gain a stronger foundation on which to compete. If they cannot, the model should change.

Compete on service—not captivity.

SMP is intended to support that principle by separating the shared ownership record from the applications built around it.

What specifically concerns you about synthetic performers, automated production and licensing?

A: My central concern is the growing separation of human consent and economic participation from the production lifecycle. As synthetic performers and automated production expand, creators need clearer ways to establish how their work, likeness and style may be used—and whether they participate in the resulting value.

When creative material enters an opaque model without a dependable record of source, authority and permitted use, licensing and accountability become harder to enforce. The problem is not AI itself; it is the absence of transparent provenance, legible permissions and workable remedies.

Completed training may not be technically reversible, and SMP cannot guarantee that third parties will follow a rule. Its proposed role is prospective: help establish verifiable provenance and usage conditions before authorised deployment, while recognising that enforcement and revocation still depend on technology, agreement and law.

Human creativity is not ownerless raw material.

SMP is intended to support that principle through clearer provenance, recorded consent and verifiable usage conditions.

Which single entertainment journey should GEX test first?

A: The first journey I want to test is live event ticketing because it is bounded, familiar and observable. It offers a practical setting in which to evaluate how SMP’s five functions work together across issue, holding, eligibility, transfer and settlement.

A venue could issue a ticket key with defined access, price and transfer conditions. A fan could buy it through a standard browser interface, while the ownership graph records the authorised holder beneath the experience. If a later transfer is permitted, the record could update and the settlement engine could apply the agreed payment allocation to the relevant parties.

This is not a claim that SMP will eliminate fraud or secondary-market abuse. The test is whether clearer records and consistent rules can improve the journey without adding specialist knowledge or unnecessary friction for fans, venues and rightsholders.

Ticketing makes the ownership problem visible—and measurable.

SMP is intended to test that proposition by connecting issuance, ownership, transfer and settlement beneath a familiar ticketing experience.

What measurable result would convince you SMP works?

A: What will convince me that SMP works is not one heroic percentage, but consistent evidence across the complete transaction. A bounded pilot should show that authorised transfers complete reliably, agreed payments reach the correct parties and exceptions can be resolved without burdensome manual reconciliation.

Through early GEX Entertainment releases, we need to measure the full journey: issuance, purchase, access, permitted transfer, settlement, recovery and support. The experience should remain familiar to the fan while the shared infrastructure operates accurately beneath it. Any proposed revenue allocation, including consented offers, must be applied exactly as agreed and verified through real transactions.

Only clear operational evidence should justify broader reuse. If the pilot demonstrates reliable settlement, lower reconciliation effort, rights clarity, effective recovery, privacy in practice and willing participation, SMP will have a credible baseline for refinement and possible expansion.

Evidence—not ambition—is the permission to scale.

SMP is intended to earn that permission through bounded tests of usability, settlement, recovery, privacy and operational value.

What evidence would persuade you that SMP — or part of it — is wrong?

A: I would change the approach—or a specific function within it—if bounded testing shows that cryptographic complexity creates more friction or cost than the problem warrants. I am not interested in decentralisation for its own sake; shared infrastructure must demonstrate practical value against a suitable centralised baseline.

Recovery is one decisive test. If it cannot restore legitimate access while resisting impersonation and account takeover, it is not ready. The same applies to privacy-preserving proofs: if they create unacceptable latency or cannot operate within applicable privacy requirements, they must be redesigned or removed.

If evidence shows that a central database delivers a better result for a function at lower net cost, we should use or adapt it. The mission is human equity, clearer rights and accountable participation—not loyalty to an architecture or line of code.

The mission must survive the architecture.

SMP is intended to evolve through evidence, retaining only the functions that improve usability, security, privacy and value in practice.

Which principles must never be sacrificed for growth, speed or revenue?

A: Two principles are non-negotiable: protect personal information and preserve the integrity of issuer-defined rules. Neither should be weakened for short-term growth or revenue. Digital infrastructure loses its legitimacy when scale overrides consent, privacy or agreed economic participation.

Where possible, direct identity should remain at the application layer rather than enter the shared core. The common record should carry only what is necessary for authorised ownership, permission and settlement. Issuer-defined transfer and payment rules should be applied consistently, while still allowing lawful remedies, transparent amendments and mutual agreement.

That means rejecting hidden access, undisclosed data use and deliberate bypasses of consent or settlement rules. If commercial pressure can quietly override the safeguards, SMP would reproduce the gatekeeping it is intended to address.

Scale must never outrank consent.

SMP is intended to uphold that boundary through data minimisation, explicit permissions and reviewable settlement rules.

Who should have influence over SMP’s rules as it develops?

A: No single company should permanently control rules intended as shared infrastructure. As SMP matures, creators, rightsholders, developers, security specialists, operators, consumer and privacy voices, and regional stakeholders should gain defined influence over its direction.

The intended model is transparent, rule-bound governance with increasing independence from short-term commercial pressure. Any proposed corporate, regional or non-profit structures—including GEX Digital B.V., the GEX Academy or the GEX Foundation—must be treated as intended until they are legally established, properly governed and publicly documented. Relevant regulation, including European digital-market rules where applicable, must inform the design.

Open and reusable mechanisms can support collaboration, but openness alone does not create legitimacy. Influence must be earned through accountable structures, clear decision rights, independent oversight and conduct that protects the people who create and rely on the system.

Shared infrastructure requires shared accountability.

SMP is intended to develop toward transparent, rule-bound governance that extends influence beyond any single company.

Why are you prepared to spend years pursuing this?

A: I am prepared to spend years on this because I have watched digital distribution expand reach while leaving ownership, permission and economic participation unresolved. During the shift from physical formats to digital delivery, I saw how gaps in legacy agreements could expose creators and weaken their continuing relationship with the value they helped produce.

The underlying problem has evolved rather than disappeared. Broad platform terms, concentrated control and the use of creative work in generative systems have made consent, provenance and participation more urgent. My aim is not to attack technology or remove institutions, but to help create clearer rights and more accountable infrastructure for creators, talent, audiences and operators.

This is not a short software project or a claim that one architecture has solved the future. It is a long-term commitment to test whether digital ownership can become a normal expectation supported by systems that people can understand, recover and trust.

My legacy is not a protocol. It is ownership people can trust.

SMP is intended to pursue that legacy through clearer entitlements, explicit consent, accountable settlement and evidence-led development.

Who most needs to hear your manifesto first?

A: Independent film studios, music labels and high-impact creators should hear this first because they feel the imbalance directly. Many have committed audiences but remain dependent on platforms for access, customer relationships, data and economics. The message is not absolute control or a software sales pitch; it is a proposal for clearer entitlements, consent and participation.

Early collaborators can help test whether issuer-defined memberships, content releases and permitted transfer rules create practical value for creators and fans. Their role is not to endorse an unproven system, but to challenge its assumptions, shape bounded pilots and provide evidence the wider industry can examine.

Start with the independents who feel the imbalance—and can test the alternative.

SMP is intended to begin with bounded entertainment pilots in which independent creators and their audiences can evaluate clearer rights, transfers and settlement.

If SMP succeeds, what should be different ten years from now?

A: Ten years from now, success would mean that digital ownership and privacy are normal expectations rather than privileges controlled by a platform. People and creators would have clearer entitlements, more meaningful consent and stronger records of authorised participation across the applications they choose to use.

Creators could follow the authorised lifecycle of their work across participating services and receive agreed payments when valid transactions occur. Provenance and permission could become easier to verify before authorised use, including in AI-enabled workflows, while recognising that enforcement and remedies will still depend on technology, agreement and law.

The legacy I want is not the permanent dominance of one company or one technical design. It is a digital environment in which institutions can build valuable services without owning the only record of the relationship, and in which the people who create value retain clearer rights and a meaningful voice.

The future should not require permission from a gatekeeper to prove what is yours.

SMP is intended to test whether shared ownership, consent and settlement mechanisms can help make that future practical and trustworthy.

What do you want people to remember after everything else is forgotten?

A: I want people to remember that human creativity was never ownerless raw material, and that digital progress did not have to come at the expense of dignity, consent or fair participation. Technologies will change and platforms will fade, but the principle should endure: people deserve to understand what they hold, control what they share and participate in the value they help create.

If my work contributes anything lasting, I hope it is the conviction that ownership should be supported by systems worthy of trust—not granted temporarily by a gatekeeper.

Remember the principle, not the platform: human creativity deserves dignity, consent and a fair stake in its value.

SMP is intended to test whether clearer entitlements, explicit consent and accountable settlement can help turn that principle into durable practice.