4 ms·
Prints are, ahem, "prints", they are not the original. First editions of books are not the manuscript.
by insert_coin 6y ago
Prints are, ahem, "prints", they are not the original. First editions of books are not the manuscript.
- andybak 6y agoThat's the point I'm making. I'm not sure I understand what counter-argument you're making?
- insert_coin 6y agoNFTs cannot guarantee the ownership of an original digital asset despite its claims because a digital asset has no original. They cannot even guarantee the ownership of a limited production "edition".
- andybak 6y agoI agree. But my point is that this is only a matter of degree more stupid than the concept of limited edition prints. Or $10000 cigars you can't smoke. Or a hotel room that costs similar amounts per night. The list goes on.
- URSpider94 6y agoThey can guarantee part of a limited edition, if the contract is written such that only x tokens can be issued. If a future contract issues more copies, then that release will be less valuable by nature of it being later/less exclusive, even though it’s the same physical file.
- insert_coin 6y agoYou don't need contracts to make copies of digital assets.
- kgwgk 6y agoThe point is that the token only guarantees the ownership of a token from a limited edition of tokens.
- URSpider94 6y agoHow about photographs? Even back in the days of silver chemistry printing, it was fairly straightforward for an artist like Ansel Adams to go into the darkroom and print up more copies of his pieces. Most famous photographers, in fact, hire assistants who do the actual duplication to their formula, and then they sign, date and number the prints. Today, when even fine art photographers print their results via inkjet, it’s incredibly easy to reproduce as many copies as you want. For modern graphic arts, the value has always come from being part of a serialized limited edition.
- insert_coin 6y ago> For modern graphic arts, the value has always come from being part of a serialized limited edition. The value to whom? To the artist the actual negative is clearly the most valuable to own. Original Ansel Adams negatives are actually very very valuable. Things, actual things, have value because they are physical, and the closer to the original the more value they have. Negatives have the most value, prints have less value, and a digital jpeg of an Ansel Adams photo has almost no value. I know, I "own" several.
- andybak 6y ago> and the closer to the original the more value they have. Do you see the step you've just taken? It's no longer about authenticity, it's about proximity to authenticity. Would a reproduction from the original negative by someone other than Ansel Adams be more valuable than a different type of reproduction? If so, why?
- insert_coin 6y agoOf course, it is closer to the author. I am fully aware of what I am saying: things have value not only because of what they are or what they are made of, they have value for other reasons. NFT people claim things only have value because of what they are, an art piece has value because it is an art piece, because it is beautiful to look at or whatever, and that visual property can be stored on the blockchain. That is where they are failing. They are missing 99% of the reasons things have value, and why they cannot understand two seemingly identical things having widely different values.