12 ms·
Charlie Bit Me NFT sale: Brothers to pay for university with auction money
- jrochkind1 5y ago> Howard says the family, who live in Buckinghamshire, has now made an estimated £1,000,000 off the video over the years What are the pre-NFT means by which one makes £1 million off of a home movie on youtube? Surely not(?) just youtube ad revenue sharing?
- mhh__ 5y agoProbably licencing the video to both online people and traditional places like (I'm guessing) the daily mail
- ceejayoz 5y agohttps://www.pri.org/stories/2012-04-01/charlie-bit-my-finger-earns-500000-5-years-video https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-04-01/charlie-bit-my-finger... > Once the video reached 50 million views, the family began earning cash from YouTube ads and television spots, Mashable wrote.
- pmorici 5y agoPre YouTube you would make money off funny home videos by sending a VHS copy in to America's Funniest Home Videos for a chance to win $10,000 or the $100,000 grand prize.
- djhworld 5y agoThe whole NFT thing is completely absurd, but tbh I'd do the same in their position. If someone is willing to pay, then why not? Not sure I'd spend it on university fees though (fees operate differently here in the UK), seems like a waste.
- xwdv 5y agoWhen you look at university as a long 4 year vacation it can be very economical.
- seibelj 5y agoDNS can be thought of as an early form of NFT - something that is purely digital and has a unique owner. Currently, NFT is about collecting and speculation, which is currently the exact same use case as many collectibles like baseball cards. I believe the space will evolve to allow NFT holders to have additional rights and utility, such as copyright and ability to earn royalties from licensing the art. NFT is simply provable ownership of a digital asset. What that asset actually is and what it provides is an experimental and evolving space. I think HNers need to think less narrow about this.
- organsnyder 5y ago> NFT is simply provable ownership of a digital asset. How is this any different from traditional copyright ownership? Assigning the rights for a piece of IP has been commonplace for well over a century.
- seibelj 5y agoThis goes down the rabbit hole of crypto enthusiasm, which HN as a collective despises. But blockchain allows the asset to be verified quickly, impossible to counterfeit (the asset itself, not the NFT image), and immediately makes it available to the entire ecosystem of dapps running on the blockchain rails. I believe NFTs will become a larger component of DeFi, enabling their use as collateral. But a large number of games will also integrate with NFTs and enable a larger ecosystem of assets to move freely between them.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- seanalltogether 5y agoSo in this context, is this anything more then a sale of copyright over the video? Does youtube let you transfer videos from one owner to another while preserving the link?
- danielvf 5y agoIt's actually not a sale of copyright - that remains with the family. It's purely the sale of the NFT. You can see the terms of the sale here: https://www.charliebitme.com/#/auction-terms https://www.charliebitme.com/#/auction-terms
- Joeboy 5y agoWhen you say "the NFT" - there isn't actually any legal or technical reason the family can't sell more NFTs of the video, is there? Or anybody else for that matter, unless they count as derived works I guess.
- mattigames 5y agoThis NFT in particular is the first one for that video and the one going famous on social media therefore it's the "valuable" one, I wish I was joking.
- danielvf 5y agoIf you made a hundred atom-exact replicas of the Mona Lisa, it wouldn't dent the value of the "real" Mona Lisa very much, if at all, outside of the difficulty in telling them apart - and the nature of NFT's mean that it's absolutely clear which one is the "real" one. Technically, of course someone could clone it. No value there though, since the clones would lack scarcity, and wouldn't be "authentic". Legally, no one else can clone this particular NFT, since that would be directly copying someone else's copyrighted work. The family, the owners of the copyright could, but the odds of clones selling for anything would be minimal.
- Joeboy 5y ago
- danielvf 5y agoI am a part of the engineering team at Origin Protocol, who built and ran this auction. AMA. Fun fact: within a few days of the auction we beat an hour long DDOS attack peaking at 4.7 million page per minute.
- edent 5y agoHow much fake bidding / shill bidding do you see on your platform? It seems that many "high value" auctions are just grifters paying inflated prices for their own works to try and drive up the popularity of the NFT market. Do you do anything to combat this sort of fraud?
- danielvf 5y agoI've not seen any on our platform, yet. Winners have been big, well known collectors. At Origin Protocol, we are currently doing white-glove auctions for celebrities and top-tier NFTs. The Charlie Bit Me video is a perfect example. This means that the pool of bidders that can pay the prices that these go for is fairly small. I would think that the problems you mention would be much more prevalent among NFT artists who are looking to make a career out of this.
- c03 5y agoWould love to see a write up of this defense.
- danielvf 5y agoPretty stock response: - Identify the characteristics of the attack. - Block as much as possible, as far forward as possible. - Cache as much as possible to minimize load. - Scale the parts of the backend that are the bottlenecks. Of course it was a lot more exciting than that during the actual event. :) DDOS attacks for ransoms are a part of life in crypto, so this wasn't our first time dealing with things. We also load test copies of our sites in peacetime until they break in fun ways, to know what and where the failure modes are.
- llimos 5y agoFor a reason I can't quite explain, this story just hits the spot for me. Such fond memories of that video! Good on them!