5 ms·

I'm going to disagree with you. Pseudo-intellectual gives the "justifications" far too much credit. What I also find hilarious, folks who love this NFT "can't

I'm going to disagree with you. Pseudo-intellectual gives the "justifications" far too much credit. What I also find hilarious, folks who love this NFT "can't be copied" are great are the same people who hate DRM. While I'm not a fan of intrusive DRM, I'm going to side with paying what folks deserve for putting time into coding/art/planning for a game/movie/whatever. I get something from their effort, they deserve something in return. That and I'd rather buy a $20 poster of art from my real life wall than over glorified digital wallpaper.

Animats 6y ago
Henry Ford got this. He was once pitched by some art dealers, who gave him a big book of prints of artworks they had for sale. He then asked, now that I have this book, why would I want the original?
Rule35 6y ago
DRM keeps people from viewing/using something, and can (often does) keep a legitimate owner from using it. And NFT does not, it only lets you prove (to anyone who cares) that you have a granted right to the product. You should appreciate this, it lets you support the creator with zero risk of locking out a legitimate viewer. Also, you realize that you could print the digital artwork and have a poster, right? Personally I've got more than enough posters, too many to put up in ten houses, and would actually rather have high quality scans of them so I can still enjoy them.
- SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
  You misunderstand. NFTs grant you absolutely no rights to anything. You simply were fooled into buying a token which points to a resource. That's it. It bestows no additional rights to the content itself. For instance, Jack Dorsey could delete that one tweet he sold an NFT against and... you're essentially left with a useless and worthless token to show off to very few people who probably barely care. You have no recourse or a leg to stand on. Good luck getting a refund. As far as supporting artists goes, doesn't Patreon kind of already do this? Or what about cutting a check directly to the author? NFTs seem like "supporting" artists with extra steps. Plus, the middle-men always win on this with all the silly gas fees. I'd argue NFTs are extremely inefficient when those fees are taken into consideration.
  - Rule35 6y ago
    > You misunderstand. NFTs grant you absolutely no rights to anything. NFTs provide the right to whatever they control. If you buy a software license via NFT, it will unlock the software. You can prove this before buying. NFTs to show you own art? Yeah, that's pretty basic, it's the equivalent of a paper receipt. If you'd pay more for print #1 then an equivalent NFT is no more wasteful. > For instance, Jack Dorsey could delete that one tweet he sold an NFT against Yeah, Jack is an idiot and so is his NFT. Not a surprise. > As far as supporting artists goes, doesn't Patreon kind of already do this? Yeah, but it takes a bigger cut. > Plus, the middle-men always win on this with all the silly gas fees. I'd argue NFTs are extremely inefficient when those fees are taken into consideration. Don't buy an NFT on an expensive blockchain then. Some have almost no transaction fees. Besides, you could just buy an off-chain cryptographically signed token of donation if you don't want the blockchain but want to be able to prove that your receipt is real.
    - SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
      I appreciate you taking the time to break down your response. I still don't see the utility in NFTs personally (disastrous environmental impact notwithstanding), but you didn't handwave away my criticisms, which is a plus in my book. EDIT: My other real concern, which I don't believe NFTs really address is the fact that, unlike a physical artform, like a certified Picasso painting, digital art can be infinitely copied, and having an NFT token isn't the same to me as actually owning the physical painting outright, something that cannot be properly 1:1 copied. Also... NFTs don't prevent a bad actor from tokenizing someone else's work and passing it off as their own.
      - Rule35 6y ago
        Paper receipts don't prevent gallery owners from printing off extra copies, sometimes of art they aren't even supposed to have. But if your favorite artist has a webpage you can go there and see their crypto payment address (if they're into NFTs they'll know to do this, if they don't maybe the NFT is from someone else...) and you can verify that the funds go to the right person. And yes, the art itself is unrelated. Anyone can download it. NFTs (for art) are a prestige way to sponsor the artist via that specific work. You can 100% prove that you sent that author the funds. That's it. (I think it's a bit like buying an original and giving it to a museum.) IMHO, The future use of NFTs is actual non-fungible goods, like a concert seat. It's not "real property" so there aren't many legal restrictions on trading usage rights and a court is likely to respect the decision of the two parties to keep their ledger wherever they want. This NFT-art boom seems like people just playing with the tech before we manage to sign a venue to use crypto-tickets - a proof of concept and a way to familiarize enough people with the tech that there's an audience for it when a real service using NFTs is launched.

Animats 6y ago

Henry Ford got this. He was once pitched by some art dealers, who gave him a big book of prints of artworks they had for sale. He then asked, now that I have this book, why would I want the original?

Rule35 6y ago

DRM keeps people from viewing/using something, and can (often does) keep a legitimate owner from using it. And NFT does not, it only lets you prove (to anyone who cares) that you have a granted right to the product. You should appreciate this, it lets you support the creator with zero risk of locking out a legitimate viewer. Also, you realize that you could print the digital artwork and have a poster, right? Personally I've got more than enough posters, too many to put up in ten houses, and would actually rather have high quality scans of them so I can still enjoy them.

SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
You misunderstand. NFTs grant you absolutely no rights to anything. You simply were fooled into buying a token which points to a resource. That's it. It bestows no additional rights to the content itself. For instance, Jack Dorsey could delete that one tweet he sold an NFT against and... you're essentially left with a useless and worthless token to show off to very few people who probably barely care. You have no recourse or a leg to stand on. Good luck getting a refund. As far as supporting artists goes, doesn't Patreon kind of already do this? Or what about cutting a check directly to the author? NFTs seem like "supporting" artists with extra steps. Plus, the middle-men always win on this with all the silly gas fees. I'd argue NFTs are extremely inefficient when those fees are taken into consideration.
- Rule35 6y ago
  > You misunderstand. NFTs grant you absolutely no rights to anything. NFTs provide the right to whatever they control. If you buy a software license via NFT, it will unlock the software. You can prove this before buying. NFTs to show you own art? Yeah, that's pretty basic, it's the equivalent of a paper receipt. If you'd pay more for print #1 then an equivalent NFT is no more wasteful. > For instance, Jack Dorsey could delete that one tweet he sold an NFT against Yeah, Jack is an idiot and so is his NFT. Not a surprise. > As far as supporting artists goes, doesn't Patreon kind of already do this? Yeah, but it takes a bigger cut. > Plus, the middle-men always win on this with all the silly gas fees. I'd argue NFTs are extremely inefficient when those fees are taken into consideration. Don't buy an NFT on an expensive blockchain then. Some have almost no transaction fees. Besides, you could just buy an off-chain cryptographically signed token of donation if you don't want the blockchain but want to be able to prove that your receipt is real.
  - SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
    I appreciate you taking the time to break down your response. I still don't see the utility in NFTs personally (disastrous environmental impact notwithstanding), but you didn't handwave away my criticisms, which is a plus in my book. EDIT: My other real concern, which I don't believe NFTs really address is the fact that, unlike a physical artform, like a certified Picasso painting, digital art can be infinitely copied, and having an NFT token isn't the same to me as actually owning the physical painting outright, something that cannot be properly 1:1 copied. Also... NFTs don't prevent a bad actor from tokenizing someone else's work and passing it off as their own.
    - Rule35 6y ago
      Paper receipts don't prevent gallery owners from printing off extra copies, sometimes of art they aren't even supposed to have. But if your favorite artist has a webpage you can go there and see their crypto payment address (if they're into NFTs they'll know to do this, if they don't maybe the NFT is from someone else...) and you can verify that the funds go to the right person. And yes, the art itself is unrelated. Anyone can download it. NFTs (for art) are a prestige way to sponsor the artist via that specific work. You can 100% prove that you sent that author the funds. That's it. (I think it's a bit like buying an original and giving it to a museum.) IMHO, The future use of NFTs is actual non-fungible goods, like a concert seat. It's not "real property" so there aren't many legal restrictions on trading usage rights and a court is likely to respect the decision of the two parties to keep their ledger wherever they want. This NFT-art boom seems like people just playing with the tech before we manage to sign a venue to use crypto-tickets - a proof of concept and a way to familiarize enough people with the tech that there's an audience for it when a real service using NFTs is launched.