5 ms·
You could say the same of a high quality replica of the Mona Lisa or a Picasso. It's all about the status of having the "real" thing. If you wanna argue it's va
by rafale 6y ago
You could say the same of a high quality replica of the Mona Lisa or a Picasso. It's all about the status of having the "real" thing.
If you wanna argue it's vain, I agree, but many people find it impressive at the same time they look down at any copy as pathetic no matter how close to the original, even when to the point to being identical.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoNo, at the point of being identical, the distinction evaporates. That's my point I guess. Imagine for instance that I register the image with a different blockchain. Do I now 'own it' too? Yes, I do, by this modern tortured logic.
- gcollard- 6y agoThere’s rights and licensing fees associated to it. In a couple years this might be displayed in a museum somewhere. Modern art like monochromes are still displayed to this day.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoThere's such fees on any copywrite material. This 'blockchain proves ownership' stuff doesn't add or subtract from that?
- thwarted 6y agoMaking a high quality replica of the Mona Lisa requires work, and it still won't be identical—thus the term "replica". Making a high quality copy of a digital work requires exactly no additional work. It actually takes more work to make a non-exact copy (say the CPU time of recompressing a JPEG with different compression settings). Because there's no work required to make an exact, indistinguishable copy, there is no scarcity. If this was just about recording the rights to use/exploit a work, digitally and mathematically backing the concept of copyright, that would be one thing. That would help with, say licensing stock photos. But what does it mean to "own" Jack's first tweet? How does one exploit that exclusive ownership? Is it the words of the tweet? An image of it?