7 ms·

Society has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of land. Subject, of course, to

Society has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of land. Subject, of course, to caveats and rules and fine print about what "ownership" of the land really means. The government can sieze it, for example. It's called a deed. Similarly, this community has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of a piece of art. Subject, again, to caveats and rules and fine print. If at this point you are trying to argue semantics when most of the community has a pretty intuitive sense of what exactly "owning an NFT" means, it seems a bit pointless.

zepto 5y ago
> Similarly, this community has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of a piece of art. Except that they simply haven’t. Try taking someone’s house from them. You’ll find that it’s not just semantics that defines ownership. Try copying the artwork pointed to by an NFT. You’ll find the NFT doesn’t stop you. > If at this point you are trying to argue semantics when most of the community has a pretty intuitive sense of what exactly "owning an NFT" means, it seems a bit pointless. I agree that it’s pointless to argue with people who think “owning an NFT” has any relationship to owning the artwork itself. It’s ok if people want to be part of a community who believe that together. If you feel secure as a member of that community, don’t let the rest of us perturb you. Have you considered that most people are not in fact part of that community, and that discussion of this point is quite relevant to anyone who hasn’t already committed themself to this belief?
- originalcvk 5y ago
  If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own, the right to transfer that NFT is the thing of value, and what gives it value is the person and context around who made it in the first place. Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none. Let me know when you make it all the way through, happy to continue the conversation.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), Wrong. > I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own. Yes, you contradict yourself. > Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none. Yes, which is not what you say in the parts I quoted - let’s remind ourselves: > Just like a deed conveys ownership of a house at some address, the token conveys ownership of that media. This is a common pattern in writing about this subject, which is why I point this out. It’s a standard Motte and Bailey technique, which is a dishonest form of persuasive writing. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
    - originalcvk 5y ago
      For real estate lawyers, a full understanding of all the laws is important. For someone who might want to buy a house, a rough understanding is sufficient. That's why I provide both. Not everybody needs to know or care about the exact details in order to decide it is worth owning a house. But if they are interested, they can learn. I hope providing both sides of it is seen as useful in that light - it is not self-contradictory to make broad analogies that are useful, then explain exactly in detail where those analogies break down.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > Just like a deed conveys ownership of a house at some address, the token conveys ownership of that media. This is just a lie. The token doesn’t convey ownership of then media. There is no rough understanding by which this is true. > I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none. Which you acknowledge here. This isn’t a matter of exact details that aren’t important to a buyer. If you tell someone that an NFT conveys ownership of the media, you are lying to them and participating in a con. The fact that you later contradict that statement, doesn’t change the fact that you lied.
        5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- originalcvk 5y ago
  I make it clear what that "ownership" means - the right to control that token on the blockchain. I make it clear that it is not enforced by any legal framework, just the blockchain. What is your issue?
  - zepto 5y ago
    The issue is that you also told this lie: > Just like a deed conveys ownership of a house at some address, the token conveys ownership of that media.
    - originalcvk 5y ago
      Happy to update it. Better? Again, if you don't like specific wording, I invite you to write a better explanation for regular folks which is simultaneously perfectly accurate in every sense in every phrase and word you use.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > Better? Not really. The original document contained an outright lie which have now removed because it was exposed. If you didn’t accept it was a lie, you wouldn’t have removed it. This has nothing to do with imperfect accuracy. It has to do with you writing an outright falsehood.
        originalcvk 5y ago
        In a 1700+ word article, you found two words which were part of an analogy you disagreed with, and admit that the article clarifies in detail all of your concerns. I changed these two words from "just like" to "similar to", which solves your "problem", and you still aren't happy because it was "an outright lie". It was not a lie, only deliberate misinterpretation could possibly frame it that way, so I guess I can't make you happy. Wish you the best though!
        zepto 5y ago

zepto 5y ago

> Similarly, this community has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of a piece of art. Except that they simply haven’t. Try taking someone’s house from them. You’ll find that it’s not just semantics that defines ownership. Try copying the artwork pointed to by an NFT. You’ll find the NFT doesn’t stop you. > If at this point you are trying to argue semantics when most of the community has a pretty intuitive sense of what exactly "owning an NFT" means, it seems a bit pointless. I agree that it’s pointless to argue with people who think “owning an NFT” has any relationship to owning the artwork itself. It’s ok if people want to be part of a community who believe that together. If you feel secure as a member of that community, don’t let the rest of us perturb you. Have you considered that most people are not in fact part of that community, and that discussion of this point is quite relevant to anyone who hasn’t already committed themself to this belief?

originalcvk 5y ago
If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own, the right to transfer that NFT is the thing of value, and what gives it value is the person and context around who made it in the first place. Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none. Let me know when you make it all the way through, happy to continue the conversation.
- zepto 5y ago
  > If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), Wrong. > I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own. Yes, you contradict yourself. > Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none. Yes, which is not what you say in the parts I quoted - let’s remind ourselves: > Just like a deed conveys ownership of a house at some address, the token conveys ownership of that media. This is a common pattern in writing about this subject, which is why I point this out. It’s a standard Motte and Bailey technique, which is a dishonest form of persuasive writing. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
  - originalcvk 5y ago
    For real estate lawyers, a full understanding of all the laws is important. For someone who might want to buy a house, a rough understanding is sufficient. That's why I provide both. Not everybody needs to know or care about the exact details in order to decide it is worth owning a house. But if they are interested, they can learn. I hope providing both sides of it is seen as useful in that light - it is not self-contradictory to make broad analogies that are useful, then explain exactly in detail where those analogies break down.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > Just like a deed conveys ownership of a house at some address, the token conveys ownership of that media. This is just a lie. The token doesn’t convey ownership of then media. There is no rough understanding by which this is true. > I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none. Which you acknowledge here. This isn’t a matter of exact details that aren’t important to a buyer. If you tell someone that an NFT conveys ownership of the media, you are lying to them and participating in a con. The fact that you later contradict that statement, doesn’t change the fact that you lied.
      - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
originalcvk 5y ago
I make it clear what that "ownership" means - the right to control that token on the blockchain. I make it clear that it is not enforced by any legal framework, just the blockchain. What is your issue?
- zepto 5y ago
  The issue is that you also told this lie: > Just like a deed conveys ownership of a house at some address, the token conveys ownership of that media.
  - originalcvk 5y ago
    Happy to update it. Better? Again, if you don't like specific wording, I invite you to write a better explanation for regular folks which is simultaneously perfectly accurate in every sense in every phrase and word you use.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > Better? Not really. The original document contained an outright lie which have now removed because it was exposed. If you didn’t accept it was a lie, you wouldn’t have removed it. This has nothing to do with imperfect accuracy. It has to do with you writing an outright falsehood.
      - originalcvk 5y ago
        In a 1700+ word article, you found two words which were part of an analogy you disagreed with, and admit that the article clarifies in detail all of your concerns. I changed these two words from "just like" to "similar to", which solves your "problem", and you still aren't happy because it was "an outright lie". It was not a lie, only deliberate misinterpretation could possibly frame it that way, so I guess I can't make you happy. Wish you the best though!
        zepto 5y ago