5 ms·

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: a

by 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.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    Can they? A proper reproduction would involve replicating Warhol's screen-printing process exactly. Probably easier than painting a replica Picasso, but... still pretty involved. Minting an NFT is trivial, you can do it with the press of a button, at scale. You could mint an NFT for every single item in the Library of Congress with a for-loop, if you could pay the transaction fees.
    - andybak 6y ago
      OK but I doubt that Warhol's fame rests on his exceptional screen printing skills. I get your point but I'm sure we could swap out another example that illustrates the point a little better.

by ori_b 6y ago

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.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  Can they? A proper reproduction would involve replicating Warhol's screen-printing process exactly. Probably easier than painting a replica Picasso, but... still pretty involved. Minting an NFT is trivial, you can do it with the press of a button, at scale. You could mint an NFT for every single item in the Library of Congress with a for-loop, if you could pay the transaction fees.
  - andybak 6y ago
    OK but I doubt that Warhol's fame rests on his exceptional screen printing skills. I get your point but I'm sure we could swap out another example that illustrates the point a little better.