3 ms·

> Sunday's spending spree means the mysterious anonymous bidder will become the owner of the Charlie Bit My Finger clip. > its owner does not actually buy the

by whack 5y ago

> Sunday's spending spree means the mysterious anonymous bidder will become the owner of the Charlie Bit My Finger clip. > its owner does not actually buy the copyright itself - meaning the artwork the NFT represents can still be shown wherever the original artist or creator chooses. Genuinely curious. What does it mean to own a widely shared digital content, if you don't have the copyright to it? What's stopping the copyright-owner from continuing to license the copyright to others, or even enforcing their copyright against you in future? From a legal perspective, how would the NFT owner even enforce their ownership against anyone else?

floren 5y ago
> What does it mean to own a widely shared digital content, if you don't have the copyright to it? Nothing. > What's stopping the copyright-owner from continuing to license the copyright to others, or even enforcing their copyright against you in future? Nothing. > From a legal perspective, how would the NFT owner even enforce their ownership against anyone else? They can't.
- Opt_Out_Fed_IRS 5y ago
  But the important thing is that clueless buyers didn't put together the above reasoning Or think somehow blockchain and AI can be used the amazing technoutopian future™ to combat piracy (including piracy of the image or video of the NFT they bought it)
ping_pong 5y ago
> What does it mean to own a widely shared digital content, if you don't have the copyright to it? Therein lies the question. It's basically selling a digital derivative of something that gives you no rights besides owning that derivative itself. Is there anything saying that the copyright owner can't sell another NFT to a competing NFT blockchain? What if people start using different NFTs for the same digital good?
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  It sounds like the emperor's clothes, he's wearing the most exquisite garment as long as everyone agrees he is...

by whack 5y ago

floren 5y ago

> What does it mean to own a widely shared digital content, if you don't have the copyright to it? Nothing. > What's stopping the copyright-owner from continuing to license the copyright to others, or even enforcing their copyright against you in future? Nothing. > From a legal perspective, how would the NFT owner even enforce their ownership against anyone else? They can't.

Opt_Out_Fed_IRS 5y ago
But the important thing is that clueless buyers didn't put together the above reasoning Or think somehow blockchain and AI can be used the amazing technoutopian future™ to combat piracy (including piracy of the image or video of the NFT they bought it)

ping_pong 5y ago

> What does it mean to own a widely shared digital content, if you don't have the copyright to it? Therein lies the question. It's basically selling a digital derivative of something that gives you no rights besides owning that derivative itself. Is there anything saying that the copyright owner can't sell another NFT to a competing NFT blockchain? What if people start using different NFTs for the same digital good?

bellyfullofbac 5y ago
It sounds like the emperor's clothes, he's wearing the most exquisite garment as long as everyone agrees he is...