3 ms·

primarily because artists are poor because art pricing is a race to the bottom and the audience for their work doesnt exist outside of nfts as it is oversaturat

primarily because artists are poor because art pricing is a race to the bottom and the audience for their work doesnt exist outside of nfts as it is oversaturated the secondary reason is that the nft pipeline has royalties built in upon future sales between third parties and the royalties automatically go to the original artist it will likely be a race to the bottom in the nft space as well as it becomes more oversaturated while royalties are unobtainable by almost all artists, and even the ones with the expensive network and resources to get into such licensing arrangements have trouble enforcing the royalties and at great expense and use of energy with the entire legal system collectors like them because they can obtain tertiary valuable benefits to closed communities, being able to prove ownership in ways that “right click save as” cynics cannot with their raster copies of nfts

drdeca 5y ago
> being able to prove ownership I’m skeptical that this holds in a legal sense. Something that may be effectively the same as ownership of something, maybe. Makes sense that a license to do something could be granted which requires the licensee to possess some thing. (E.g. perhaps I could grant someone the license to use a video clip, but only under the condition that they own any red pen while publishing any derivative works?) But I’m skeptical that possessing a token can strictly speaking confer legal ownership of a copyright.
- vmception 5y ago
  This is about address signing to prove ownership of the NFT on the spot to get access to a physical members only club for example Just signing public private key cryptography Except the clubs are funded by royalties as the nfts are traded for different prices and the address corresponds to the current owner list Thats happening right now The other conversation about copyright or usage licenses is interesting and Id have that discussion elsewhere. We are just talking about proving the possession form of ownership right now

drdeca 5y ago

> being able to prove ownership I’m skeptical that this holds in a legal sense. Something that may be effectively the same as ownership of something, maybe. Makes sense that a license to do something could be granted which requires the licensee to possess some thing. (E.g. perhaps I could grant someone the license to use a video clip, but only under the condition that they own any red pen while publishing any derivative works?) But I’m skeptical that possessing a token can strictly speaking confer legal ownership of a copyright.

vmception 5y ago
This is about address signing to prove ownership of the NFT on the spot to get access to a physical members only club for example Just signing public private key cryptography Except the clubs are funded by royalties as the nfts are traded for different prices and the address corresponds to the current owner list Thats happening right now The other conversation about copyright or usage licenses is interesting and Id have that discussion elsewhere. We are just talking about proving the possession form of ownership right now