5 ms·

I have NFTs under my control. I can transfer them, list them for sale, w/e. It's the same relationship to cryptocurrencies I have control over. The IRS sure se

I have NFTs under my control. I can transfer them, list them for sale, w/e. It's the same relationship to cryptocurrencies I have control over. The IRS sure seems to think that I owned bitcoin.

lottin 5y ago
> I have NFTs under my control. I can transfer them, list them for sale. An NFT is not a "copy of a the art". That's the part that you got wrong.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
  > That's the part that you got wrong. That's quite confrontational, if this topic is making you upset I'll refrain from continuing.
  - lottin 5y ago
    Confrontational? I'm disagreeing with your statement > If I buy an NFT, I gain the defacto ability to resell my copy the art. and telling you exactly why I think your statement is wrong. Why do you think this is confrontational? This is a discussion forum.
    - X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
      If the art is digital how and the artist agrees that editions of the NFT represent a copy of the art how is an edition of the NFT not a copy of the art?
      - lottin 5y ago
        Because a "copy of the art" is a work of art that is the same as the original art and an NFT is not a work or art and is not the same as the original art. An NFT is a virtual token, than may or may not contain some metadata. This is not the same thing as the original art. Therefore it is not a copy of the art.
      - mminer237 5y ago
        Because it's factually not. You can't get the art from the hash. It's one-way. That's the whole point, to create artificial scarcity and non-fungibility. Since it's not actually a copy, there's no first sale doctrine license to the copyright, making it illegal to have a copy of the art unless you have a separate licensing agreement. And if you do have such an agreement, that's the thing giving practical value. You and I can agree that a rock represents your car, but I'm still not going to pay you for it.
        miracle2k 5y ago
        There is in practice no first sale doctrine for digital images; the first sale doctrine gives you the right to distribute your copy, not to make your own copies; and you can't transfer a PNG to your friend without making a copy. The first sale doctrine deals with the intersection of copyright with physical copies of a work. This is why no one is buying and selling digital artworks, except using an artificial concept of ownership - a certificate. The artworld has done it with paper certificates for a long time; NFTs are the same thing.
        lottin 5y ago
        > This is why no one is buying and selling digital artworks, except using an artificial concept of ownership - a certificate. You seem confused. A certificate does not grant ownership. The reason nobody is buying and selling digital images is because producing an exact copy of a digital image costs nothing, which means it's irrational to pay for a copy of an image since you can make a copy yourself for free.

I have NFTs under my control. I can transfer them, list them for sale, w/e. It's the same relationship to cryptocurrencies I have control over. The IRS sure seems to think that I owned bitcoin.

lottin 5y ago

> I have NFTs under my control. I can transfer them, list them for sale. An NFT is not a "copy of a the art". That's the part that you got wrong.

X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
> That's the part that you got wrong. That's quite confrontational, if this topic is making you upset I'll refrain from continuing.
- lottin 5y ago
  Confrontational? I'm disagreeing with your statement > If I buy an NFT, I gain the defacto ability to resell my copy the art. and telling you exactly why I think your statement is wrong. Why do you think this is confrontational? This is a discussion forum.
  - X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
    If the art is digital how and the artist agrees that editions of the NFT represent a copy of the art how is an edition of the NFT not a copy of the art?
    - lottin 5y ago
      Because a "copy of the art" is a work of art that is the same as the original art and an NFT is not a work or art and is not the same as the original art. An NFT is a virtual token, than may or may not contain some metadata. This is not the same thing as the original art. Therefore it is not a copy of the art.
    - mminer237 5y ago
      Because it's factually not. You can't get the art from the hash. It's one-way. That's the whole point, to create artificial scarcity and non-fungibility. Since it's not actually a copy, there's no first sale doctrine license to the copyright, making it illegal to have a copy of the art unless you have a separate licensing agreement. And if you do have such an agreement, that's the thing giving practical value. You and I can agree that a rock represents your car, but I'm still not going to pay you for it.
      - miracle2k 5y ago
        There is in practice no first sale doctrine for digital images; the first sale doctrine gives you the right to distribute your copy, not to make your own copies; and you can't transfer a PNG to your friend without making a copy. The first sale doctrine deals with the intersection of copyright with physical copies of a work. This is why no one is buying and selling digital artworks, except using an artificial concept of ownership - a certificate. The artworld has done it with paper certificates for a long time; NFTs are the same thing.
        lottin 5y ago
        > This is why no one is buying and selling digital artworks, except using an artificial concept of ownership - a certificate. You seem confused. A certificate does not grant ownership. The reason nobody is buying and selling digital images is because producing an exact copy of a digital image costs nothing, which means it's irrational to pay for a copy of an image since you can make a copy yourself for free.