3 ms·

This is a great way to make a lot of money but doesn't provide a lot of value. In fact, it destroys one of the most important parts about digital media: that it

This is a great way to make a lot of money but doesn't provide a lot of value. In fact, it destroys one of the most important parts about digital media: that it can be instantly copied exactly. We need to continue teaching people that it's perfectly acceptable to make exact duplicates of something, not head in the opposite direction.

tomasien 9y ago
It actually doesn't destroy that - it assumes that quality will never change and adds a new asset type to digital files. You end up with both collectible/signed/authentic versions and the infinitely replicable copies. It allows artists to implement scarcity without implementing DRM.
- stctgion 9y ago
  Implementing scarcity seems like a totally undesirable thing to do, unless your only motive is money
  - tomasien 9y ago
    Yes - artists deserve to be able to make money from selling scarcity and authenticity. 100%. If they can do that while not restricting access, it is the best of both worlds.
    - thisacctforreal 9y ago
      This is a great project, thank you :)
dmix 9y ago
What is being destroyed exactly? Almost all art in galleries are privately owned. The article itself says nothing stops you from copying the digital art either. But that's not dissimilar from those factories in China pumping out cloned replicas of famous art: > Just as you can share reproductions of the Mona Lisa, someone could still copy and paste the image, but the provenance and price history of the original are accessible to all. The original of these works is identifiable and cannot be replicated, which is why they are called “provably rare.” It's just an alternative form of property rights, ownership claims, and selling art. A decentralized version of something that already exists. That's arguably value-add here in the crypto aspect depending on your worldview, or at a minimum the perpetuation of what already exists. Nothing is being destroyed. Most of our complaints against copyrights are typically regarding the arbitrary (US) congressional laws around it and the anti-competitive anti-progress behaviour that the movie/music industry is notorious for. Where consumers just want to get easy access to full libraries of high-quality content. This development does nothing to help these companies achieve that easier and it also takes congress/centralized law out of the picture.

tomasien 9y ago

It actually doesn't destroy that - it assumes that quality will never change and adds a new asset type to digital files. You end up with both collectible/signed/authentic versions and the infinitely replicable copies. It allows artists to implement scarcity without implementing DRM.

stctgion 9y ago
Implementing scarcity seems like a totally undesirable thing to do, unless your only motive is money
- tomasien 9y ago
  Yes - artists deserve to be able to make money from selling scarcity and authenticity. 100%. If they can do that while not restricting access, it is the best of both worlds.
  - thisacctforreal 9y ago
    This is a great project, thank you :)

dmix 9y ago

What is being destroyed exactly? Almost all art in galleries are privately owned. The article itself says nothing stops you from copying the digital art either. But that's not dissimilar from those factories in China pumping out cloned replicas of famous art: > Just as you can share reproductions of the Mona Lisa, someone could still copy and paste the image, but the provenance and price history of the original are accessible to all. The original of these works is identifiable and cannot be replicated, which is why they are called “provably rare.” It's just an alternative form of property rights, ownership claims, and selling art. A decentralized version of something that already exists. That's arguably value-add here in the crypto aspect depending on your worldview, or at a minimum the perpetuation of what already exists. Nothing is being destroyed. Most of our complaints against copyrights are typically regarding the arbitrary (US) congressional laws around it and the anti-competitive anti-progress behaviour that the movie/music industry is notorious for. Where consumers just want to get easy access to full libraries of high-quality content. This development does nothing to help these companies achieve that easier and it also takes congress/centralized law out of the picture.