5 ms·

> It’s not really ownership though is it. The tweet is Jack’s, he can delete it if he wishes. Would there not be some liability in doing so? Legally the buyer

> It’s not really ownership though is it. The tweet is Jack’s, he can delete it if he wishes. Would there not be some liability in doing so? Legally the buyer does own it (it seems) and Jack simply has control over it.

bdonlan 6y ago
First, is a tweet even a thing you can own, legally? You can own the copyright and you can enter into a contract where you promise not to delete it, but a tweet is ultimately something that is displayed and processed by, and exists at the pleasure of Twitter; they're not a party to your NFT shenanigans and therefore not bound to any of it. As for the hypothetical contract not to delete it yourself, you'd probably have a good argument that there was no clear meeting of the minds - without an explicit description of what the author intended to be bound to by selling a NFT you'll have a hard time getting the courts to enforce anything about it.
- paul_f 6y ago
  What if I sell an NFT of one of my tweets that is subsequently taken down for violating Twitters terms? Am I liable? This whole concept IMO is absurd.
  - qqii 6y ago
    There's nuance to what it mean to "sell one of your tweets". What does it mean to own a tweet? What rights are you selling? Ignoring NFTs you could define selling your tweet as: * Selling the copyright to your tweet * Selling the right to delete your tweet Digital ownership is a new and nuanced concept that doesn't have good analogues. Ownership through public/private keys has no analogue and also feel absurd in any analogy using safes and keys.
- qqii 6y ago
  This is really the problem, digital ownership outside of asymmetric cryptography is not well defined in law. Digitally, it is perfectly clear: You own the NFT. Through what is written on a tweet and a website it can be interpreted as the representation of Jack's tweet. You don't have any further owenship or rights.
qqii 6y ago
I doubt it but we're also in uncharted waters. There are no technical definitions to own off chain items or legal rulings about what ownership of an NFT means for the off chain item. As I explain in this comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26372130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26372130) there's a nuance between owning the NFT representation of the tweet and owning the ability to delete the tweet.

bdonlan 6y ago

First, is a tweet even a thing you can own, legally? You can own the copyright and you can enter into a contract where you promise not to delete it, but a tweet is ultimately something that is displayed and processed by, and exists at the pleasure of Twitter; they're not a party to your NFT shenanigans and therefore not bound to any of it. As for the hypothetical contract not to delete it yourself, you'd probably have a good argument that there was no clear meeting of the minds - without an explicit description of what the author intended to be bound to by selling a NFT you'll have a hard time getting the courts to enforce anything about it.

paul_f 6y ago
What if I sell an NFT of one of my tweets that is subsequently taken down for violating Twitters terms? Am I liable? This whole concept IMO is absurd.
- qqii 6y ago
  There's nuance to what it mean to "sell one of your tweets". What does it mean to own a tweet? What rights are you selling? Ignoring NFTs you could define selling your tweet as: * Selling the copyright to your tweet * Selling the right to delete your tweet Digital ownership is a new and nuanced concept that doesn't have good analogues. Ownership through public/private keys has no analogue and also feel absurd in any analogy using safes and keys.
qqii 6y ago
This is really the problem, digital ownership outside of asymmetric cryptography is not well defined in law. Digitally, it is perfectly clear: You own the NFT. Through what is written on a tweet and a website it can be interpreted as the representation of Jack's tweet. You don't have any further owenship or rights.

qqii 6y ago

I doubt it but we're also in uncharted waters. There are no technical definitions to own off chain items or legal rulings about what ownership of an NFT means for the off chain item. As I explain in this comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26372130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26372130) there's a nuance between owning the NFT representation of the tweet and owning the ability to delete the tweet.