60 ms·

I can look at the Mona Lisa - either the original or a reproduction. Does that mean "owning the Mona Lisa" is meaningless? How about "owning the copyright on a

I can look at the Mona Lisa - either the original or a reproduction. Does that mean "owning the Mona Lisa" is meaningless? How about "owning the copyright on a painting that is on the internet"? Worthless or worth paying for?

bawolff 6y ago
I can go to a library to use a computer, does that mean owning a laptop is meaningless? This seems like a very silly comparison.
- andybak 6y ago
  Your analogy is flawed. The laptop has utility in terms of access and convenience.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    Yes, that's my point.
ori_b 6y ago
Owning an NFT is not the same as owning copyright. It's just owning the right to transfer the NFT. There can be as many NFTs for the same thing as the (edit: anyone) artist feels like producing. [1] https://nitter.eu/joshmillard/status/1370088760663179266 https://nitter.eu/joshmillard/status/1370088760663179266 [2] https://blog.erratasec.com/2021/03/deconstructing-that-69million-nft.html https://blog.erratasec.com/2021/03/deconstructing-that-69mil...
- roywiggins 6y ago
  There can be as many NFTs for the same thing as anyone feels like producing. We could all mint a different Mona Lisa NFT.
  - andybak 6y ago
    Well yes. But anyone can make a reproduction of a Warhol print. But there is a chain of custody that adds value. I'd like to reiterate that I think the value in a Warhol print is also stupid. It's less stupid than NFTs but the point I'm trying to make (apparently unsuccesfully) is that these differences are matters of degree rather than type. We humans have a multitude of ways to invent value that is built on sand.
    - ori_b 6y ago
      > Well yes. But anyone can make a reproduction of a Warhol print The point is that an NFT only shows a chain of custody for the NFT. It does not imply anything about the originality of the Warhol.
      - andybak 6y ago
        See my other comments throughout this thread. We have many fictions we indulge in about authenticity and value. NFTs are a new fiction. They might even be dumber than other currently accepted fictions. But the discussion is "which of these fictions is the most stupid?" rather than "NFTs are stupid". We are already a long way from genuine utility or intrinsic value and into the realms of social consensus and value-through-association.
        ori_b 6y ago
        Sure. They have value because people will pay. I still suspect most people think they're getting an exclusive license for a piece of artwork, and not a bit of performance art. They almost certainly believe that the goods pointed to by the token are non-fungible. Not that they have a non-fungible reference to a fungible good.
        andybak 6y ago
        Oh I definitely agree. People are very confused about what they're buying. And many people involved have no incentive to correct that misapprehension. It's quite a shabby business in many ways. But that just makes it even more akin to the mainstream fine art market.
simonh 6y ago
Owning a physical painting grants access to the object, so for example you can study the texture of the brush strokes, the canvas, take samples of the paint, smell it, destroy it, produce copies or images of it at any level of detail or resolution you like. None of this is possible with a digital reproduction. If I own the copyright of an artwork, even one 'on the internet' I have exclusive rights to reproduce it commercially. For example I could sell prints, while it would be illegal for others to do so. The existence of the latest pop songs on Youtube doesn't stop the copyright holders commercialising it. NFTs don't by themselves confer any of these rights or privileges with respect to the thing they purportedly represent.
- andybak 6y ago
  Which is why I think my comparison to limited edition prints is the most useful. 1. A limited edition print doesn't confer copyright 2. A limited edition print isn't the original 3. A limited edition print may never have been in the presence of the artist.

bawolff 6y ago

I can go to a library to use a computer, does that mean owning a laptop is meaningless? This seems like a very silly comparison.

andybak 6y ago
Your analogy is flawed. The laptop has utility in terms of access and convenience.
- bawolff 6y ago
  Yes, that's my point.

ori_b 6y ago

Owning an NFT is not the same as owning copyright. It's just owning the right to transfer the NFT. There can be as many NFTs for the same thing as the (edit: anyone) artist feels like producing. [1] https://nitter.eu/joshmillard/status/1370088760663179266 https://nitter.eu/joshmillard/status/1370088760663179266 [2] https://blog.erratasec.com/2021/03/deconstructing-that-69million-nft.html https://blog.erratasec.com/2021/03/deconstructing-that-69mil...

roywiggins 6y ago
There can be as many NFTs for the same thing as anyone feels like producing. We could all mint a different Mona Lisa NFT.
- andybak 6y ago
  Well yes. But anyone can make a reproduction of a Warhol print. But there is a chain of custody that adds value. I'd like to reiterate that I think the value in a Warhol print is also stupid. It's less stupid than NFTs but the point I'm trying to make (apparently unsuccesfully) is that these differences are matters of degree rather than type. We humans have a multitude of ways to invent value that is built on sand.
  - ori_b 6y ago
    > Well yes. But anyone can make a reproduction of a Warhol print The point is that an NFT only shows a chain of custody for the NFT. It does not imply anything about the originality of the Warhol.
    - andybak 6y ago
      See my other comments throughout this thread. We have many fictions we indulge in about authenticity and value. NFTs are a new fiction. They might even be dumber than other currently accepted fictions. But the discussion is "which of these fictions is the most stupid?" rather than "NFTs are stupid". We are already a long way from genuine utility or intrinsic value and into the realms of social consensus and value-through-association.
      - ori_b 6y ago
        Sure. They have value because people will pay. I still suspect most people think they're getting an exclusive license for a piece of artwork, and not a bit of performance art. They almost certainly believe that the goods pointed to by the token are non-fungible. Not that they have a non-fungible reference to a fungible good.
        andybak 6y ago
        Oh I definitely agree. People are very confused about what they're buying. And many people involved have no incentive to correct that misapprehension. It's quite a shabby business in many ways. But that just makes it even more akin to the mainstream fine art market.

simonh 6y ago

Owning a physical painting grants access to the object, so for example you can study the texture of the brush strokes, the canvas, take samples of the paint, smell it, destroy it, produce copies or images of it at any level of detail or resolution you like. None of this is possible with a digital reproduction. If I own the copyright of an artwork, even one 'on the internet' I have exclusive rights to reproduce it commercially. For example I could sell prints, while it would be illegal for others to do so. The existence of the latest pop songs on Youtube doesn't stop the copyright holders commercialising it. NFTs don't by themselves confer any of these rights or privileges with respect to the thing they purportedly represent.

andybak 6y ago
Which is why I think my comparison to limited edition prints is the most useful. 1. A limited edition print doesn't confer copyright 2. A limited edition print isn't the original 3. A limited edition print may never have been in the presence of the artist.