5 ms·

Which rights? Legal rights that the artist wants to sell alongside the token can be legally enforced. Beyond that, the ownership of the token is enforced by the

Which rights? Legal rights that the artist wants to sell alongside the token can be legally enforced. Beyond that, the ownership of the token is enforced by the blockchain, and that ownership token is the thing people value.

sneak 6y ago
> Legal rights that the artist wants to sell alongside the token can be legally enforced. For the first sale. I'm not sure current contract law permits any legal rights to follow the token in subsequent sales.
- Rule35 6y ago
  Contract law can require you to hop on one foot. But what rights would you need to go to court for? The point of an NFT is that the provided rights are exercisable without further permission. Also, if the author wanted to control the NFT they'd just code it that way, for instance to prevent sales, or prevent more than one sale per decade, etc.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Sure, but the subsequent buyer of the NFT is (potentially/likely) not a party to any contract.
    - Rule35 6y ago
      Sure they are, the original contract was that the blockchain asset was authoritative. If you buy that asset then you obviously share that view. If the asset has limited transferability, well you agreed to that. It was in the code for you to test for, if not read.
      - sneak 6y ago
        Engaging with a smart contract is not an action that binds you to a legal contract. Nothing about the first sale contract can be legally binding on the person who buys the NFT when resold. You can end up with an NFT without having been party to any legal agreement whatsoever.
        Rule35 6y ago
        No, but purchasing it effectively will. If I create a software-license rental NFT which you have to refill periodically, you won't be able to force me to provide full coverage to that software. Even if you purchased it from someone else without being told the rules - the NFT encodes them and you'd be expected to read it and know the limitations on your claim. If I minted an NFT that said for every period you paid you could collect royalties from my art then you would have a valid contractual claim after purchasing it, even if I didn't make the deal with you initially. If you buy a second-hand concert-ticket NFT the requirements of attendance will still need to be met before you can use it.
        sneak 6y ago
        > If I minted an NFT that said for every period you paid you could collect royalties from my art then you would have a valid contractual claim after purchasing it, even if I didn't make the deal with you initially. I don't believe this statement to be accurate.
        Rule35 6y ago
        I don't think it's plausibly true now because of the complexity of that contract and the difficulty in expressing it, jurisdictional issues, etc. But if all that was handled and it was considered binging between you and the first guy then I don't think the transferability would phase a court at all. The NFT by nature, being meant to be transferred, and with tools to prevent that where desired, would indicate intent. Perhaps a better example would be me (the hypothetical creator of cryptokitties) selling a cryptokitty, with the obvious implication that I would not modify my game to invalidate said kitty. The final owner of the kitty, like yourself, could sue me for misrepresentation for selling a product I intended to disable. Perhaps for tortious interference.
lottin 6y ago
From what I gather a blockchain doesn't enforce anything. It simply states who owns what. Anybody can create a blockchain and own the world's entire supply of gold according to that blockchain. But can they enforce that ownership? No, they can't.
- joosters 6y ago
  It doesn’t even do that. You can easily have one unique NFT claiming it represents ownership of the Mona Lisa, and another, unique and distinct NFT, also claiming ownership of the Mona Lisa. Besides ownership being unenforced, uniqueness is also unenforced.
  - Rule35 6y ago
    But that's not how NFTs are being used now. For one, who would issue the Mona Lisa NFT, the Louvre, or Leonardo's family, or the family of his patron at the time? An NFT can't clear up a murky issue anymore than me writing you a paper receipt would. But, a paper receipt is all that differentiates print #1 from #1005, and #1 is usually more prestigious. And even if those prints came off the machine in the other order, the actual artist is still attaching significance to one of them over the others. NFTs are a way of saying that my identical print (file) is really the special one. Or that I'm special for having it. Or whatever.
    - joosters 6y ago
      It’s just like you having a paper receipt with #1 on it, and me also having a receipt with #1 on it. Both can be on the same blockchain at the same time, issued by different NFT ‘creators’. Or maybe on different blockchain... Which one is the ‘real’ one? No-one can say.
      - Rule35 6y ago
        Do you not crypto? It's clear which address mints an NFT, and that address can be provably linked to the party with the keys. And they can put that proof on their website. You do know your favorite artists website, right? So yeah, by looking at both NFTs we can clearly determine which is authentic. If they're supposed to be unique, as opposed to 'we both sponsored the same art', then there are easy ways to ensure that.

sneak 6y ago

> Legal rights that the artist wants to sell alongside the token can be legally enforced. For the first sale. I'm not sure current contract law permits any legal rights to follow the token in subsequent sales.

Rule35 6y ago
Contract law can require you to hop on one foot. But what rights would you need to go to court for? The point of an NFT is that the provided rights are exercisable without further permission. Also, if the author wanted to control the NFT they'd just code it that way, for instance to prevent sales, or prevent more than one sale per decade, etc.
- sneak 6y ago
  Sure, but the subsequent buyer of the NFT is (potentially/likely) not a party to any contract.
  - Rule35 6y ago
    Sure they are, the original contract was that the blockchain asset was authoritative. If you buy that asset then you obviously share that view. If the asset has limited transferability, well you agreed to that. It was in the code for you to test for, if not read.
    - sneak 6y ago
      Engaging with a smart contract is not an action that binds you to a legal contract. Nothing about the first sale contract can be legally binding on the person who buys the NFT when resold. You can end up with an NFT without having been party to any legal agreement whatsoever.
      - Rule35 6y ago
        No, but purchasing it effectively will. If I create a software-license rental NFT which you have to refill periodically, you won't be able to force me to provide full coverage to that software. Even if you purchased it from someone else without being told the rules - the NFT encodes them and you'd be expected to read it and know the limitations on your claim. If I minted an NFT that said for every period you paid you could collect royalties from my art then you would have a valid contractual claim after purchasing it, even if I didn't make the deal with you initially. If you buy a second-hand concert-ticket NFT the requirements of attendance will still need to be met before you can use it.
        sneak 6y ago
        > If I minted an NFT that said for every period you paid you could collect royalties from my art then you would have a valid contractual claim after purchasing it, even if I didn't make the deal with you initially. I don't believe this statement to be accurate.
        Rule35 6y ago
        I don't think it's plausibly true now because of the complexity of that contract and the difficulty in expressing it, jurisdictional issues, etc. But if all that was handled and it was considered binging between you and the first guy then I don't think the transferability would phase a court at all. The NFT by nature, being meant to be transferred, and with tools to prevent that where desired, would indicate intent. Perhaps a better example would be me (the hypothetical creator of cryptokitties) selling a cryptokitty, with the obvious implication that I would not modify my game to invalidate said kitty. The final owner of the kitty, like yourself, could sue me for misrepresentation for selling a product I intended to disable. Perhaps for tortious interference.

lottin 6y ago

From what I gather a blockchain doesn't enforce anything. It simply states who owns what. Anybody can create a blockchain and own the world's entire supply of gold according to that blockchain. But can they enforce that ownership? No, they can't.

joosters 6y ago
It doesn’t even do that. You can easily have one unique NFT claiming it represents ownership of the Mona Lisa, and another, unique and distinct NFT, also claiming ownership of the Mona Lisa. Besides ownership being unenforced, uniqueness is also unenforced.
- Rule35 6y ago
  But that's not how NFTs are being used now. For one, who would issue the Mona Lisa NFT, the Louvre, or Leonardo's family, or the family of his patron at the time? An NFT can't clear up a murky issue anymore than me writing you a paper receipt would. But, a paper receipt is all that differentiates print #1 from #1005, and #1 is usually more prestigious. And even if those prints came off the machine in the other order, the actual artist is still attaching significance to one of them over the others. NFTs are a way of saying that my identical print (file) is really the special one. Or that I'm special for having it. Or whatever.
  - joosters 6y ago
    It’s just like you having a paper receipt with #1 on it, and me also having a receipt with #1 on it. Both can be on the same blockchain at the same time, issued by different NFT ‘creators’. Or maybe on different blockchain... Which one is the ‘real’ one? No-one can say.
    - Rule35 6y ago
      Do you not crypto? It's clear which address mints an NFT, and that address can be provably linked to the party with the keys. And they can put that proof on their website. You do know your favorite artists website, right? So yeah, by looking at both NFTs we can clearly determine which is authentic. If they're supposed to be unique, as opposed to 'we both sponsored the same art', then there are easy ways to ensure that.