4 ms·

We didn't have 30 years of limitless duplication. You're overestimating how many people were online in the 90s. Look at the graphs from this article: https://w

by bhaak 5y ago

We didn't have 30 years of limitless duplication. You're overestimating how many people were online in the 90s. Look at the graphs from this article: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/visualizing-40-years-of-music-industry-sales/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/visualizing-40-years-... I'm actually surprised that the music industry revenue went down that fast in the 2000s. I would have guessed it took a little bit longer. So going by those figures, we had 20 years of limitless duplication and it utterly destroyed the revenue of the music industry. Exactly what they feared would happen if there was ever a digital writable medium to play music from. NFTs are not DRM. They produce scarcity in a different way than DRM does. They don't encrypt digital content, they sign it. Without additional support from websites or physical venues this doesn't do anything. This could e.g. be something like a Twitter checkmark for a NFT profile or being allowed to a special club only if you own a certain kind of NFT.

gruez 5y ago
>So going by those figures, we had 20 years of limitless duplication and it utterly destroyed the revenue of the music industry. Exactly what they feared would happen if there was ever a digital writable medium to play music from. right, but that's more of a economics issue (ie. how content creation would be funded) than GP's claim of "people who are forced to reckon with the concept of infinite abundance lose their minds and bend their whole will toward reintroducing scarcity by any means possible.". >NFTs are not DRM. They produce scarcity in a different way than DRM does. the NFT equivalent in ye olden days would be signed records/cds/posters. they have similar characteristics to NFTs (scarcity, bragging rights, etc.), but people aren't "losing their minds" over them. I haven't heard owners of signed records making fun of napster/itunes users for "right-clicker mentality" or whatever.
- bhaak 5y ago
  There was no way to reintroduce scarcity up until now. And now there's money involved. So people go crazy, although not necessarily those people or the industry that should benefit from it. > I haven't heard owners of signed records making fun of napster/itunes users for "right-clicker mentality" or whatever. There was no Twitter back then. :-) But also, as far as I have witnessed it, it was the "right-clickers" that started it. "Hey, coiner, I downloaded your NFT with a simple right-click. How stupid are you to pay money for that?" If the owners of signed records made fun of mp3 users, the mp3 users might have retaliated as well?

by bhaak 5y ago

gruez 5y ago

>So going by those figures, we had 20 years of limitless duplication and it utterly destroyed the revenue of the music industry. Exactly what they feared would happen if there was ever a digital writable medium to play music from. right, but that's more of a economics issue (ie. how content creation would be funded) than GP's claim of "people who are forced to reckon with the concept of infinite abundance lose their minds and bend their whole will toward reintroducing scarcity by any means possible.". >NFTs are not DRM. They produce scarcity in a different way than DRM does. the NFT equivalent in ye olden days would be signed records/cds/posters. they have similar characteristics to NFTs (scarcity, bragging rights, etc.), but people aren't "losing their minds" over them. I haven't heard owners of signed records making fun of napster/itunes users for "right-clicker mentality" or whatever.

bhaak 5y ago
There was no way to reintroduce scarcity up until now. And now there's money involved. So people go crazy, although not necessarily those people or the industry that should benefit from it. > I haven't heard owners of signed records making fun of napster/itunes users for "right-clicker mentality" or whatever. There was no Twitter back then. :-) But also, as far as I have witnessed it, it was the "right-clickers" that started it. "Hey, coiner, I downloaded your NFT with a simple right-click. How stupid are you to pay money for that?" If the owners of signed records made fun of mp3 users, the mp3 users might have retaliated as well?