5 ms·

I think the idea of digital collectibles is a novelty. Just like real world collectibles. People talk about it like it's a world changing thing, and it's a lot

I think the idea of digital collectibles is a novelty. Just like real world collectibles. People talk about it like it's a world changing thing, and it's a lot of bullshit. There's not a whole lot about it that truly requires decentralization. Like, sure, NFTs hypothetically make it so that ownership of Top Shots can persist regardless of whether the company that operates it survives. But would the actual Flow blockchain survive the demise of Dapper Labs? I kind of doubt it. And where would the Top Shots I supposedly own continue to be hosted? It's effectively just a centralized marketplace. I've tried to think about what would truly be unique and interesting about decentralized NFTs, and to me, they make sense if they hold credibility independent of any producer. So, something like a tradable auth role that is respected in many spaces. Kind of like an identity, except that I think the concept of a role makes a bit more sense as something that people can trade. Consider it to be like an event ticket that is respected in an entire ecosystem of different companies. To me, that's where it starts to enable something that's unlike what's existed before, but it's still hard for me to imagine a real use case. And that's core of the problem of the crypto world: the technology solves problems that don't map on to existing B2B or B2C services. It's literally a solution in search of a problem.

arcticbull 5y ago
> Like, sure, NFTs hypothetically make it so that ownership of Top Shots can persist regardless of whether the company that operates it survives. They don't confer copyright or licensing or anything at all other than a URL. This means it would be illegal to build a site that displays such content, and it would get instantly DMCA'd into oblivion. My issuing an NFT of the Mona Lisa is basically me grabbing a museum map from the Louvre, circling the Mona Lisa on it, signing my name, then selling that map to you for big money. The map doesn't given you a license to display the Mona Lisa. It's just a set of instructions re: how to find it alongside my signature. If they move the painting to a new location, it gets stolen, destroyed, or the Louvre is shut down - well, tough. And anyone can do it, with any map of the Louvre. > Consider it to be like an event ticket that is respected in an entire ecosystem of different companies. Event tickets have one issuer and one point of redemption. Generally, Ticketmaster is on both sides (they own the issuance via Ticketmaster and they own the redemption side - the venues - via Live Nation). It's not in their interest as a business to relinquish even the tinies bit of control.
- miracle2k 5y ago
  It's true that copyright is not transferred but courts may well recognize the buyers right to display those images on a website as implicitly given. If you are minting an NFT today, putting the file on IPFS, accepting the fact that it will be freely available across the internet, and selling to someone "digital ownership", you will I think fins it hard to convince a judge that you did not intend to grant such a license. Also, consider that in NFTs, the only one selling an NFT to the Mona Lisa is Leonardo.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > It's true that copyright is not transferred but courts may well recognize the buyers right to display those images on a website as implicitly given. No. Copyright must be explicitly assigned. > Also, consider that in NFTs, the only one selling an NFT to the Mona Lisa is Leonardo. Nah anyone can do it any time.
    - miracle2k 5y ago
      > No. Copyright must be explicitly assigned. No one is talking about assigning copyright. The question is about a license to display the content on a website. I am fairly certain you have heard of non-verbal contracts before. For example, here is what the UK government has to say about an implied copyright license: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/license-sell-or-market-your-copyright-material https://www.gov.uk/guidance/license-sell-or-market-your-copy... > Nah anyone can do it any time. Anyone can also sell a signature of Clooney. And yet no one does, nor would anyone buy it. This is not something that plays into a serious analysis of the NFT space, and so I am not sure why you would want to find it interesting to talk about.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Nfts explicitly grant exactly no rights whatsoever and you will not find a judge that will impose that burden.
- acjohnson55 5y ago
soco 5y ago
They even recognize the entire point of NFT is artificial scarcity. How could something fly which has the word "artificial" in the name??? On the other hand, artists/creators could sell copyright along the digital artifact. Then it could be for real - as soon as you can hold a future-proof proof of that copyright, and not a mere URI to some random server storage.
- acjohnson55 5y ago
  You can also sell the copyright with the blockchain. Agreed that the artificial scarcity is a tell that there's not a particularly impressive amount of innovation.

arcticbull 5y ago

> Like, sure, NFTs hypothetically make it so that ownership of Top Shots can persist regardless of whether the company that operates it survives. They don't confer copyright or licensing or anything at all other than a URL. This means it would be illegal to build a site that displays such content, and it would get instantly DMCA'd into oblivion. My issuing an NFT of the Mona Lisa is basically me grabbing a museum map from the Louvre, circling the Mona Lisa on it, signing my name, then selling that map to you for big money. The map doesn't given you a license to display the Mona Lisa. It's just a set of instructions re: how to find it alongside my signature. If they move the painting to a new location, it gets stolen, destroyed, or the Louvre is shut down - well, tough. And anyone can do it, with any map of the Louvre. > Consider it to be like an event ticket that is respected in an entire ecosystem of different companies. Event tickets have one issuer and one point of redemption. Generally, Ticketmaster is on both sides (they own the issuance via Ticketmaster and they own the redemption side - the venues - via Live Nation). It's not in their interest as a business to relinquish even the tinies bit of control.

miracle2k 5y ago
It's true that copyright is not transferred but courts may well recognize the buyers right to display those images on a website as implicitly given. If you are minting an NFT today, putting the file on IPFS, accepting the fact that it will be freely available across the internet, and selling to someone "digital ownership", you will I think fins it hard to convince a judge that you did not intend to grant such a license. Also, consider that in NFTs, the only one selling an NFT to the Mona Lisa is Leonardo.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > It's true that copyright is not transferred but courts may well recognize the buyers right to display those images on a website as implicitly given. No. Copyright must be explicitly assigned. > Also, consider that in NFTs, the only one selling an NFT to the Mona Lisa is Leonardo. Nah anyone can do it any time.
  - miracle2k 5y ago
    > No. Copyright must be explicitly assigned. No one is talking about assigning copyright. The question is about a license to display the content on a website. I am fairly certain you have heard of non-verbal contracts before. For example, here is what the UK government has to say about an implied copyright license: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/license-sell-or-market-your-copyright-material https://www.gov.uk/guidance/license-sell-or-market-your-copy... > Nah anyone can do it any time. Anyone can also sell a signature of Clooney. And yet no one does, nor would anyone buy it. This is not something that plays into a serious analysis of the NFT space, and so I am not sure why you would want to find it interesting to talk about.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Nfts explicitly grant exactly no rights whatsoever and you will not find a judge that will impose that burden.
acjohnson55 5y ago

soco 5y ago

They even recognize the entire point of NFT is artificial scarcity. How could something fly which has the word "artificial" in the name??? On the other hand, artists/creators could sell copyright along the digital artifact. Then it could be for real - as soon as you can hold a future-proof proof of that copyright, and not a mere URI to some random server storage.

acjohnson55 5y ago
You can also sell the copyright with the blockchain. Agreed that the artificial scarcity is a tell that there's not a particularly impressive amount of innovation.