4 ms·

The difference in this case being that the image was uploaded to the public Internet (IPFS), with no access controls, by the original artist (and presumably the

The difference in this case being that the image was uploaded to the public Internet (IPFS), with no access controls, by the original artist (and presumably the copyright holder). Regardless of your stance on copyright, it's hard to see how anyone should be upset about someone downloading content the artist shared publicly of their own free will.

rhn_mk1 5y ago
Copyright holders upload their music and videos on youtube, pictures on photo sharing sites, yet they get upset if those are used by someone else. You could say that copying the data was not their intention, but can we say that copying was the intention of the copyright holder of the NFT data? At most, this is only the next logical step from what we already have.
- jhgb 5y ago
  > You could say that copying the data was not their intention That seems strange since without copying, the data stored on YouTube etc. would be useless.
- Yizahi 5y ago
  The issue was much more subtle and hilarious :) In the whole digital world authors habe IP rights for digital content and have (sometimes) ability to enforce them (e.g. DMCA). Copying images without permission doesn't run afoul of IP rights but later using them commercially - does. But that is not what is interesting here. Person we are discussing is promoting NFT as a technology to sell stuff, implying that it is also possible to transfer IP rights via NFTs (which is complete lie). Next he is social engineered (swindled) of 3 pictures which he voluntarily transfers via NFT blockchain to the scammer. And THEN he proceeds to claim that he is still the original owner (indeed he is, because no IP rights were transferred via NFT same because it is impossible), thereby completely devaluing the NFT tech he is promoting :) .
- derekp7 5y ago
  The problem is that the way the medium works is that the only way to post something for someone else to see utilizing the wildly adopted protocols (http(s)/html/etc) is to have the item downloaded and copied. The attitude is very much like if someone performed a song, and then got upset that people could remember the song in their heads ("You owe me everything you recall the tune from memory or sing it to yourself in the shower"). This is just how the brain works.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    I agree, but that's no different than making songs/videos public on youtube. Pictures too, unless watermarking is used. I'm not a fan of this, but this is where the copyright zeitgeist seems to be headed.
- nybble41 5y ago
  If you post a video publicly on YouTube then you expect that anyone can stream it. One could quibble over whether you intended for anyone to be able to save the video since the site places some minor technical obstacles in the way (plus the ToS visitors are supposed to agree to), though it's hard to argue that you weren't at least aware that it could be done easily given well-known tools like youtube-dl. If you upload your content to IPFS there are no obstacles to downloading, and no ToS. It's like hosting the file on your own site with no restrictions, except that the system is explicitly designed such that you can't take down anything that's been published. That makes it hard to complain about people saving the content; you've basically given everyone an implied license to access and pin the files. Republishing outside of IPFS might be a problem, copyright-wise, but since anyone can get the files from IPFS directly that isn't a major issue.
- ykevinator3 5y ago
  Copyright is not not debatable

rhn_mk1 5y ago

Copyright holders upload their music and videos on youtube, pictures on photo sharing sites, yet they get upset if those are used by someone else. You could say that copying the data was not their intention, but can we say that copying was the intention of the copyright holder of the NFT data? At most, this is only the next logical step from what we already have.

jhgb 5y ago
> You could say that copying the data was not their intention That seems strange since without copying, the data stored on YouTube etc. would be useless.
Yizahi 5y ago
The issue was much more subtle and hilarious :) In the whole digital world authors habe IP rights for digital content and have (sometimes) ability to enforce them (e.g. DMCA). Copying images without permission doesn't run afoul of IP rights but later using them commercially - does. But that is not what is interesting here. Person we are discussing is promoting NFT as a technology to sell stuff, implying that it is also possible to transfer IP rights via NFTs (which is complete lie). Next he is social engineered (swindled) of 3 pictures which he voluntarily transfers via NFT blockchain to the scammer. And THEN he proceeds to claim that he is still the original owner (indeed he is, because no IP rights were transferred via NFT same because it is impossible), thereby completely devaluing the NFT tech he is promoting :) .
derekp7 5y ago
The problem is that the way the medium works is that the only way to post something for someone else to see utilizing the wildly adopted protocols (http(s)/html/etc) is to have the item downloaded and copied. The attitude is very much like if someone performed a song, and then got upset that people could remember the song in their heads ("You owe me everything you recall the tune from memory or sing it to yourself in the shower"). This is just how the brain works.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  I agree, but that's no different than making songs/videos public on youtube. Pictures too, unless watermarking is used. I'm not a fan of this, but this is where the copyright zeitgeist seems to be headed.
nybble41 5y ago
If you post a video publicly on YouTube then you expect that anyone can stream it. One could quibble over whether you intended for anyone to be able to save the video since the site places some minor technical obstacles in the way (plus the ToS visitors are supposed to agree to), though it's hard to argue that you weren't at least aware that it could be done easily given well-known tools like youtube-dl. If you upload your content to IPFS there are no obstacles to downloading, and no ToS. It's like hosting the file on your own site with no restrictions, except that the system is explicitly designed such that you can't take down anything that's been published. That makes it hard to complain about people saving the content; you've basically given everyone an implied license to access and pin the files. Republishing outside of IPFS might be a problem, copyright-wise, but since anyone can get the files from IPFS directly that isn't a major issue.
ykevinator3 5y ago
Copyright is not not debatable