5 ms·

The problem I think, is that their art still isn't selling. NFTs aren't art, they are effectively trading cards referencing art. These trading cards are, somew

by Lazare 6y ago

The problem I think, is that their art still isn't selling. NFTs aren't art, they are effectively trading cards referencing art. These trading cards are, somewhat mysteriously, selling, and that does get money into the hands of artists which is good, but they're not doing it by encouraging people to buy art or tip artists, and it's hard to see how "everyone can just print trading cards referencing things" is a sustainable anything.

scsilver 6y ago
People pay for mods and skins all the time. People will pay secondlife furniture. They will pay to be be able to display it in their VR houses. They will display it like badges on their forum avatars. The speculation and whales will being the capital to generate a steady market and build out the partnerships and incentives for customers. Once people are used to digital wallets, sending a few bucks for instant delivery of some unique design is easier than etsy.
- Lazare 6y ago
  > People pay for mods and skins all the time. People will pay secondlife furniture. They will pay to be be able to display it in their VR houses. They will display it like badges on their forum avatars. All of those are neat ideas which do not require NFTs, and are not enabled by NFTs. People already pay for Second Life furniture.
  - scsilver 6y ago
    And advantage I see is the shared protocols and blockchains offer quick and seemless ownership validation even after the original merchant has gone out of business or stopped selling. And for the merchants, its painless and seemless to sell and delegate ownership without having to manage that inhouse, or pay a large fee for the service.
detaro 6y ago
I don't have the impression people buying NFT art consider there to be much difference between the art and what you call a "trading card" referencing art. (sure, many probably buy for speculation, but that happens with meatspace art too) Thought experiment: if they sold a digital art piece in traditional terms, would you consider the printed licensing contract (which is our usual legal tool represent selling a file) to be a "trading card" and the art itself to be not sold? (the legal meaning of an NFT is less defined, true, but I suspect people will tie licensing contracts into that soon enough) Especially in art, a lot of this comes ultimately down to social convention of what people do consider to have value, and as long as enough people agree it doesn't really matter what the rest of us thinks. (I think I get how the logic works for NFTs, but it doesn't work for me in the sense that I currently don't consider owning an NFT to be meaningful to me, unlike owning other kinds of (representations of) art)
- Lazare 6y ago
  > if they sold a digital art piece in traditional terms People do sell licenses to digital art, yes. I've both bought and sold such licenses, primarily on TurboSquid (https://www.turbosquid.com/ https://www.turbosquid.com/), a digital market place which has been doing that for over 20 years. That's neither a trading card nor the art itself, but it's certainly closer to "art" than "trading card", because I get specific legal rights to do specific things with the art, such as use it and reproduce it in a book, website, computer game, etc. It is worth, I think, asking what is being offered by NFTs that TurboSquid (and it's endless competitors and equivalents for other media types) don't offer. Scarcity? Nothing stops such marketplaces from selling exclusive licenses, and some have tried, although I don't think it's ever been popular. > the legal meaning of an NFT is less defined, true, but I suspect people will tie licensing contracts into that soon enough Well, yes. People might start selling some sort of "NFT + rights" package at some point, but they don't come with any now, hence the "trading card" digs. Even if people start adding rights in the future, it's not clear that these rights will be (or will be seen to be) an integral part of the NFT. If I can sell an NFT of my 3D model now, and I can sell the right to use my 3D model in a game now, why would I combine these in a package and not just keep selling them independently? (Now, one interesting thing is that the rights attached to NFTs would presumably be transferable, while licenses to digital art are currently overwhelmingly non-transferable. That is a big change. But...we could sell transferable licenses now; you don't need NFTs for that, and the concept is currently not popular. I rather think that rather than NFTs true value being that they enable transferable licenses, the transferability of licences attached to NFTs will be a drawback.) > Especially in art, a lot of this comes ultimately down to social convention That is true. Art prints are an interesting example; you're basically paying for 1) the right to reproduce an artwork on a single piece of physical media and 2) paying for the artist to do that reproduction for you. Both are legitimate services, but it's odd to find them packaged together like that so frequently. And yet, art prints are a huge and very well accepted part of the art market. If NFTs become widely accepted, they will seem less strange, to be sure.
Dylan16807 6y ago
Think of it as a certificate of authenticity. If it's not made/endorsed by the artist it's not worth anything.
- quantumsequoia 6y ago
  That still doesn't make any sense to me. Would anybody have paid for a physical certificate of authenticity for a digital file pre-NFTs? If the NBA started selling certificates of authenticity for video clips that didn't come with any intellectual property ownership or exclusive ability, people would have laughed and would have never paid millions for them
- iudqnolq 6y ago
  Exactly. What would you say if I told you I have a famous painting and a certificate of authenticity and am willing to sell you the certificate for $$$ and keep the painting?
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    What if it's a digital painting where all copies are identical? The certificate basically is the ownership.
    - iudqnolq 6y ago
      Suppose I own a game on steam. I pay a friend to write me a certificate saying whoever owns the certificate owns the game. I sell you the certificate. You pirate the game. Do you own it? If the NFT doesn't come with conventional legal rights, you don't own the thing the NFT points to in the real legal system. If it does, it's redundant.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        If first sale doctrine is ever fixed, your friend could sell you their copy that way. I don't know why all your examples involve third parties stamping sweet nothings onto a piece of paper. Of course something made by a non-author and with no ownership is useless. I said that in my first comment. > If the NFT doesn't come with conventional legal rights, you don't own the thing the NFT points to in the real legal system. If it does, it's redundant. An NFT needs to have some kind of rights in the contract or it's a scam. Notably you at least need exclusivity! But that doesn't make it "redundant". It's a way of making a contract, not a replacement for contracts.

by Lazare 6y ago

scsilver 6y ago

People pay for mods and skins all the time. People will pay secondlife furniture. They will pay to be be able to display it in their VR houses. They will display it like badges on their forum avatars. The speculation and whales will being the capital to generate a steady market and build out the partnerships and incentives for customers. Once people are used to digital wallets, sending a few bucks for instant delivery of some unique design is easier than etsy.

Lazare 6y ago
> People pay for mods and skins all the time. People will pay secondlife furniture. They will pay to be be able to display it in their VR houses. They will display it like badges on their forum avatars. All of those are neat ideas which do not require NFTs, and are not enabled by NFTs. People already pay for Second Life furniture.
- scsilver 6y ago
  And advantage I see is the shared protocols and blockchains offer quick and seemless ownership validation even after the original merchant has gone out of business or stopped selling. And for the merchants, its painless and seemless to sell and delegate ownership without having to manage that inhouse, or pay a large fee for the service.

detaro 6y ago

I don't have the impression people buying NFT art consider there to be much difference between the art and what you call a "trading card" referencing art. (sure, many probably buy for speculation, but that happens with meatspace art too) Thought experiment: if they sold a digital art piece in traditional terms, would you consider the printed licensing contract (which is our usual legal tool represent selling a file) to be a "trading card" and the art itself to be not sold? (the legal meaning of an NFT is less defined, true, but I suspect people will tie licensing contracts into that soon enough) Especially in art, a lot of this comes ultimately down to social convention of what people do consider to have value, and as long as enough people agree it doesn't really matter what the rest of us thinks. (I think I get how the logic works for NFTs, but it doesn't work for me in the sense that I currently don't consider owning an NFT to be meaningful to me, unlike owning other kinds of (representations of) art)

Lazare 6y ago
> if they sold a digital art piece in traditional terms People do sell licenses to digital art, yes. I've both bought and sold such licenses, primarily on TurboSquid (https://www.turbosquid.com/ https://www.turbosquid.com/), a digital market place which has been doing that for over 20 years. That's neither a trading card nor the art itself, but it's certainly closer to "art" than "trading card", because I get specific legal rights to do specific things with the art, such as use it and reproduce it in a book, website, computer game, etc. It is worth, I think, asking what is being offered by NFTs that TurboSquid (and it's endless competitors and equivalents for other media types) don't offer. Scarcity? Nothing stops such marketplaces from selling exclusive licenses, and some have tried, although I don't think it's ever been popular. > the legal meaning of an NFT is less defined, true, but I suspect people will tie licensing contracts into that soon enough Well, yes. People might start selling some sort of "NFT + rights" package at some point, but they don't come with any now, hence the "trading card" digs. Even if people start adding rights in the future, it's not clear that these rights will be (or will be seen to be) an integral part of the NFT. If I can sell an NFT of my 3D model now, and I can sell the right to use my 3D model in a game now, why would I combine these in a package and not just keep selling them independently? (Now, one interesting thing is that the rights attached to NFTs would presumably be transferable, while licenses to digital art are currently overwhelmingly non-transferable. That is a big change. But...we could sell transferable licenses now; you don't need NFTs for that, and the concept is currently not popular. I rather think that rather than NFTs true value being that they enable transferable licenses, the transferability of licences attached to NFTs will be a drawback.) > Especially in art, a lot of this comes ultimately down to social convention That is true. Art prints are an interesting example; you're basically paying for 1) the right to reproduce an artwork on a single piece of physical media and 2) paying for the artist to do that reproduction for you. Both are legitimate services, but it's odd to find them packaged together like that so frequently. And yet, art prints are a huge and very well accepted part of the art market. If NFTs become widely accepted, they will seem less strange, to be sure.

Dylan16807 6y ago

Think of it as a certificate of authenticity. If it's not made/endorsed by the artist it's not worth anything.

quantumsequoia 6y ago
That still doesn't make any sense to me. Would anybody have paid for a physical certificate of authenticity for a digital file pre-NFTs? If the NBA started selling certificates of authenticity for video clips that didn't come with any intellectual property ownership or exclusive ability, people would have laughed and would have never paid millions for them
iudqnolq 6y ago
Exactly. What would you say if I told you I have a famous painting and a certificate of authenticity and am willing to sell you the certificate for $$$ and keep the painting?
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  What if it's a digital painting where all copies are identical? The certificate basically is the ownership.
  - iudqnolq 6y ago
    Suppose I own a game on steam. I pay a friend to write me a certificate saying whoever owns the certificate owns the game. I sell you the certificate. You pirate the game. Do you own it? If the NFT doesn't come with conventional legal rights, you don't own the thing the NFT points to in the real legal system. If it does, it's redundant.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      If first sale doctrine is ever fixed, your friend could sell you their copy that way. I don't know why all your examples involve third parties stamping sweet nothings onto a piece of paper. Of course something made by a non-author and with no ownership is useless. I said that in my first comment. > If the NFT doesn't come with conventional legal rights, you don't own the thing the NFT points to in the real legal system. If it does, it's redundant. An NFT needs to have some kind of rights in the contract or it's a scam. Notably you at least need exclusivity! But that doesn't make it "redundant". It's a way of making a contract, not a replacement for contracts.