4 ms·

Did the family sell an NFT of the digital representation only, or the representation AND the copyright? Furthermore, there are numerous problems with digital a

Did the family sell an NFT of the digital representation only, or the representation AND the copyright? Furthermore, there are numerous problems with digital archival that need to be addressed. Some pages have complicated backend dependencies (APIs, tokens, dynamic content) that make naive mirroring effectively useless for preservation. Example would be some of the old versions of patches and KB articles from the Microsoft Windows support site when it wasn't as simple as visiting a plain webpage but redirection to dynamic content. Downloads often required an extra redirection to a mirror or some sort of analytics check-in to get a concrete (one-time token authorized too?) link. Does digital archival require a right to be forgotten? Media players, converters, and complete documentation about formats need to be preserved in order for media to be useful indefinitely. How about describing the encoding of plain text documents so that that's preserved too? Capturing as much metadata as reasonably possible so that it can be useful for future users and researchers.

ed25519FUUU 5y ago
The incongruence of NFTs is they basically require the state to strongly enforce copyright claim to actually have any value outside of bragging rights. A state with rigid, strong copyright enforcement is not something I personally value, and doesn’t seem to be the sentiment of people buying and selling these NFTs, so bragging rights it is?
- doggodaddo78 5y ago
  That's the thing. I don't see how selling an NFT alone is functionally any different than selling a copy of the SHA3 of a digital artifact: something anyone can do. To me, it's reducible to the equivalent of a seller saying "I will sell you the answer to 1 + 2." That seems inherently worthless. It's only worthwhile if rich idiots are trading these mathematical answers around like baseball cards. But then, I don't see how they can "own" them if they or anyone can just make infinite copies of them when/if they ever have access to the "private key" material. Ownership of the underlying digital asset doesn't make sense either. Again, there don't seem to be obvious legal or technical protections to stop anyone from making copies.
  - asddubs 5y ago
    it's just a new and exciting way of money laundering, much like real art
    - doggodaddo78 5y ago
      You can't see me in my ninja outfit furiously rolling-up the Mona Lisa into a floatable titanium tube to be sealed in a salt-plugged chamber hidden on the side of my speedy, automated, self-sufficient, 150 M super-yacht. Nothing to see here. Move along. <-- The gist of what's happening but without the actual "Mona Lisa." Yup. Effectively, printing their own currency of large denominations and trading in real money for them. Which then reduces to people stuffing real money into ever smaller suitcases for exfil and cleaning, regardless if they're new shiny thing dabblers, corporate pirates, actual pirates, or drug dealers.
- Buttons840 5y ago
  Or worse, NFTs work best in a future distopia where general purpose computing doesn't exist. Let's get excited for that, yeah?

ed25519FUUU 5y ago

The incongruence of NFTs is they basically require the state to strongly enforce copyright claim to actually have any value outside of bragging rights. A state with rigid, strong copyright enforcement is not something I personally value, and doesn’t seem to be the sentiment of people buying and selling these NFTs, so bragging rights it is?

doggodaddo78 5y ago
That's the thing. I don't see how selling an NFT alone is functionally any different than selling a copy of the SHA3 of a digital artifact: something anyone can do. To me, it's reducible to the equivalent of a seller saying "I will sell you the answer to 1 + 2." That seems inherently worthless. It's only worthwhile if rich idiots are trading these mathematical answers around like baseball cards. But then, I don't see how they can "own" them if they or anyone can just make infinite copies of them when/if they ever have access to the "private key" material. Ownership of the underlying digital asset doesn't make sense either. Again, there don't seem to be obvious legal or technical protections to stop anyone from making copies.
- asddubs 5y ago
  it's just a new and exciting way of money laundering, much like real art
  - doggodaddo78 5y ago
    You can't see me in my ninja outfit furiously rolling-up the Mona Lisa into a floatable titanium tube to be sealed in a salt-plugged chamber hidden on the side of my speedy, automated, self-sufficient, 150 M super-yacht. Nothing to see here. Move along. <-- The gist of what's happening but without the actual "Mona Lisa." Yup. Effectively, printing their own currency of large denominations and trading in real money for them. Which then reduces to people stuffing real money into ever smaller suitcases for exfil and cleaning, regardless if they're new shiny thing dabblers, corporate pirates, actual pirates, or drug dealers.
Buttons840 5y ago
Or worse, NFTs work best in a future distopia where general purpose computing doesn't exist. Let's get excited for that, yeah?