4 ms·

But if you sold a hundred notes saying "the bearer of this paper owns the Mona Lisa", they're going to lose value pretty quickly once people catch on. That seem

by Joeboy 5y ago

But if you sold a hundred notes saying "the bearer of this paper owns the Mona Lisa", they're going to lose value pretty quickly once people catch on. That seems more like the right metaphor to me. I don't know about cloning an NFT, but creating an NFT is just putting a link, or hash etc, on a blockchain, isn't it? Or thereabouts. Anybody can do that, without owning the copyright. I think it's pretty well established that a link is not copyright infringement. I'm not sure about a hash, but I very much doubt it.

miracle2k 5y ago
If Damien Hirst sold 1000 more sharks they would also lose value quickly, right?
- Joeboy 5y ago
  I guess so? Not sure where you're going with that.
  - miracle2k 5y ago
    I suppose I am asking why people are concerned about this with NFTs then.
    - Joeboy 5y ago
      Because, as I understand it, the idea of an NFT is to demonstrate some sort of "ownership" of a work of art. The issue I have is that they don't do that. An ownership document that can legally be duplicated and distributed ad-infinitum by anybody at zero cost is not an effective ownership document. Even for the novel and legally meaningless version of "ownership" conferred by NFTs. If Damien Hirst sells 1000 sharks, the buyers get the physical sharks themselves, I guess along with some falsifiable and legally meaningful documentation. They really do own the sharks, physically and legally.
      - miracle2k 5y ago
        But you can't duplicate the ownership document that is the NFT, at least not anymore than I can duplicate the ownership documentation of a physical piece. The situation is even legally the same - it would be fraud if I pretended it's the original, but legal otherwise. The difference is in the copyability of the work itself.
        Joeboy 5y ago
        There's nothing technical stopping you creating further NFTs for the same work, and there's nothing legal stopping you selling them, unless you enter into a separate legal agreement that makes the NFT irrelevant. It occurs to me that selling an NFT is like entering an artwork into a copyright registry, then selling the paperwork (without the actual copyright). To be fair I can imagine the original copyright registration docs for eg. Gone With the Wind being worth something to collectors.
almostkorean 5y ago
It’s common for NFTs to link to a URL or IPFS address. But there are NFTs that are completely on-chain (https://www.larvalabs.com/autoglyphs https://www.larvalabs.com/autoglyphs) and some that are mostly on-chain with off-chain dependencies (https://artblocks.io/ https://artblocks.io/)

by Joeboy 5y ago

miracle2k 5y ago

If Damien Hirst sold 1000 more sharks they would also lose value quickly, right?

Joeboy 5y ago
I guess so? Not sure where you're going with that.
- miracle2k 5y ago
  I suppose I am asking why people are concerned about this with NFTs then.
  - Joeboy 5y ago
    Because, as I understand it, the idea of an NFT is to demonstrate some sort of "ownership" of a work of art. The issue I have is that they don't do that. An ownership document that can legally be duplicated and distributed ad-infinitum by anybody at zero cost is not an effective ownership document. Even for the novel and legally meaningless version of "ownership" conferred by NFTs. If Damien Hirst sells 1000 sharks, the buyers get the physical sharks themselves, I guess along with some falsifiable and legally meaningful documentation. They really do own the sharks, physically and legally.
    - miracle2k 5y ago
      But you can't duplicate the ownership document that is the NFT, at least not anymore than I can duplicate the ownership documentation of a physical piece. The situation is even legally the same - it would be fraud if I pretended it's the original, but legal otherwise. The difference is in the copyability of the work itself.
      - Joeboy 5y ago
        There's nothing technical stopping you creating further NFTs for the same work, and there's nothing legal stopping you selling them, unless you enter into a separate legal agreement that makes the NFT irrelevant. It occurs to me that selling an NFT is like entering an artwork into a copyright registry, then selling the paperwork (without the actual copyright). To be fair I can imagine the original copyright registration docs for eg. Gone With the Wind being worth something to collectors.

almostkorean 5y ago

It’s common for NFTs to link to a URL or IPFS address. But there are NFTs that are completely on-chain (https://www.larvalabs.com/autoglyphs https://www.larvalabs.com/autoglyphs) and some that are mostly on-chain with off-chain dependencies (https://artblocks.io/ https://artblocks.io/)