5 ms·

there's a difference between "having" and "owning" something. You may have it on your local file (aka access) but ownership implies a super set of capabilities

there's a difference between "having" and "owning" something. You may have it on your local file (aka access) but ownership implies a super set of capabilities that they're talking about.

thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
Do you really think someone else's "ownership" of a digital asset impacts my use of my local files? DRM only works if you run the code that implements DRM. My copy of the bits are not impacted by someone's claim of ownership nor can their ownership token stop me from accessing my copy of the bits. Artificial scarcity is artificial.
- joewadcan 5y ago
  > Do you really think someone else's "ownership" of a digital asset impacts my use of my local files? No I don't think so at all, but that's only a sliver of what is being discussed. > My copy of the bits are not impacted by someone's claim of ownership nor can their ownership token stop me from accessing my copy of the bits. > My copy of the bits are not impacted by someone's claim of ownership nor can their ownership token stop me from accessing my copy of the bits. > DRM only works if you run the code that implements DRM. Agreed. ----- Here's an example: You bought a digital item, say a sword used in video games. Yes you can keep that image file of the sword and do whatever you want with it. That's only a tiny piece of "owning" that item. Imagine you could take the sword and bring it into lots of video games. The properties of that sword having value in those games can only exist with digital scarcity. Now say you want to sell merch, t-shirts with your sword printed on them. You can own the copyright to your item, so it's legal and protected. Again, "ownership" means more than access. If you don't like this or care about it... that's fine. But it's unlocking a massive amount of capability that's never existed before. As a personal who likes tech because it's an enabler... it's exciting
  - thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
    >> Imagine you could take the sword and bring it into lots of video games. The properties of that sword having value in those games can only exist with digital scarcity. It's still artificial scarcity. Unlike real swords, forging bits into magic swords requires no real work and requires no raw materials. I can make hundreds of similar digital magic swords with little effort, so there is no real scarcity. >> Now say you want to sell merch, t-shirts with your sword printed on them. You can own the copyright to your item, so it's legal and protected. Are copying, distribution, and derivative works rights included as part of the purchased digital goods or would those still be held by the creator? "On the one hand, the transfer of an NFT associated with a work of art or other copyright-protected work would not itself involve the reproduction or distribution of a protected work, consistent with the first sale doctrine. But, if the new owner of the NFT accesses the underlying work, and this access involves the creation of a new copy of the work or distribution of it, then the transfer of the NFT may potentially fall outside the scope of the first sale doctrine and create potential copyright liability. Despite this doctrinal murkiness, many NFT sales agreements appear to skirt the first sale issue by explicitly providing that NFT buyers have the right to resell the NFT. Some sales agreements go further and provide that the artist is to receive a set percentage of resale royalties. If NFTs remain a fixture of the art market, courts may be forced to decide whether to fashion a digital first sale doctrine that is responsive to new technological developments, including the rise of NFTs." Source: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/what-copyright-lawyers-need-to-know-about-nfts https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/what-copyright-lawyers-... It seems that the rights of NFT buyers with regard to copying, distribution, and derivative works is not legally settled yet.
    - joewadcan 5y ago
      > It's still artificial scarcity. Unlike real swords, forging bits into magic swords requires no real work and requires no raw materials. I can make hundreds of similar digital magic swords with little effort, so there is no real scarcity. Yes, it's intentional scarcity. Why is it assumed that's a bad thing? When we license our code, there's a choice to limit it's use or not (intentional scarcity). The same concept hasn't been available for millions of creative professions in the online world (unless you go through a expensive middleman to manage rights).

there's a difference between "having" and "owning" something. You may have it on your local file (aka access) but ownership implies a super set of capabilities that they're talking about.

thesuperbigfrog 5y ago

Do you really think someone else's "ownership" of a digital asset impacts my use of my local files? DRM only works if you run the code that implements DRM. My copy of the bits are not impacted by someone's claim of ownership nor can their ownership token stop me from accessing my copy of the bits. Artificial scarcity is artificial.

joewadcan 5y ago
> Do you really think someone else's "ownership" of a digital asset impacts my use of my local files? No I don't think so at all, but that's only a sliver of what is being discussed. > My copy of the bits are not impacted by someone's claim of ownership nor can their ownership token stop me from accessing my copy of the bits. > My copy of the bits are not impacted by someone's claim of ownership nor can their ownership token stop me from accessing my copy of the bits. > DRM only works if you run the code that implements DRM. Agreed. ----- Here's an example: You bought a digital item, say a sword used in video games. Yes you can keep that image file of the sword and do whatever you want with it. That's only a tiny piece of "owning" that item. Imagine you could take the sword and bring it into lots of video games. The properties of that sword having value in those games can only exist with digital scarcity. Now say you want to sell merch, t-shirts with your sword printed on them. You can own the copyright to your item, so it's legal and protected. Again, "ownership" means more than access. If you don't like this or care about it... that's fine. But it's unlocking a massive amount of capability that's never existed before. As a personal who likes tech because it's an enabler... it's exciting
- thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
  >> Imagine you could take the sword and bring it into lots of video games. The properties of that sword having value in those games can only exist with digital scarcity. It's still artificial scarcity. Unlike real swords, forging bits into magic swords requires no real work and requires no raw materials. I can make hundreds of similar digital magic swords with little effort, so there is no real scarcity. >> Now say you want to sell merch, t-shirts with your sword printed on them. You can own the copyright to your item, so it's legal and protected. Are copying, distribution, and derivative works rights included as part of the purchased digital goods or would those still be held by the creator? "On the one hand, the transfer of an NFT associated with a work of art or other copyright-protected work would not itself involve the reproduction or distribution of a protected work, consistent with the first sale doctrine. But, if the new owner of the NFT accesses the underlying work, and this access involves the creation of a new copy of the work or distribution of it, then the transfer of the NFT may potentially fall outside the scope of the first sale doctrine and create potential copyright liability. Despite this doctrinal murkiness, many NFT sales agreements appear to skirt the first sale issue by explicitly providing that NFT buyers have the right to resell the NFT. Some sales agreements go further and provide that the artist is to receive a set percentage of resale royalties. If NFTs remain a fixture of the art market, courts may be forced to decide whether to fashion a digital first sale doctrine that is responsive to new technological developments, including the rise of NFTs." Source: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/what-copyright-lawyers-need-to-know-about-nfts https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/what-copyright-lawyers-... It seems that the rights of NFT buyers with regard to copying, distribution, and derivative works is not legally settled yet.
  - joewadcan 5y ago
    > It's still artificial scarcity. Unlike real swords, forging bits into magic swords requires no real work and requires no raw materials. I can make hundreds of similar digital magic swords with little effort, so there is no real scarcity. Yes, it's intentional scarcity. Why is it assumed that's a bad thing? When we license our code, there's a choice to limit it's use or not (intentional scarcity). The same concept hasn't been available for millions of creative professions in the online world (unless you go through a expensive middleman to manage rights).