6 ms·
Miramax Sues Quentin Tarantino over Planned ‘Pulp Fiction’ NFTs
- Giorgi 5y agohttps://archive.md/dZf7V https://archive.md/dZf7V
- ksec 5y agoSorry I dont understand anything about NFT. ( I barely got my head around DAO ) Correct me if I am wrong. So the owner of those NFTs would have "right" to own those "copies" of uncut scenes ? Is it possible for Quentin Tarantino to sell the same "copy" of NFT to other owners?
- heyitsguay 5y agoThe owner would have their name in a distributed ledger next to a hash of some representation of the associated content. Their legal rights to the content itself would be unaffected by the process and would instead be determined by the traditional legal contracts surrounding the ownership of the property. Which, as the article indicates, Miramax is keen to assert. Tarantino could sell as many NFTs of the underlying asset as he chooses, since they have no relationship to it.
- netizen-936824 5y agoForgive me if I come off as overly negative, but from this description I get a strange impression of NFTs. Purchasing them means essentially nothing and many of the same one can be purchased by many people. So it basically means nothing at all when considering any object or idea that isn't the NFT itself.
- heyitsguay 5y agoLolol yup, now you understand NFTs :)
- netizen-936824 5y agoIf it is true that NFTs don't matter, I would think Miramax has no standing in this suit as any NFT sold doesn't actually have anything to do with pulp fiction the copyrighted film