6 ms·

>Is this affiliated with Olive Garden? >No. This is just a DMCA takedown notice waiting to happen.

by weare138 5y ago

marcofatica 5y ago
They can take the site down but he NFTs can't be removed at this point
- kjrose 5y ago
  Weirdly the NFTs being forever is an argument in their favor. As hilarious as this whole charade is.
- acdha 5y ago
  If blockchains weren't so inefficient, there'd be an interesting debate about the difference between something being fully removed versus simply being unavailable to many people to comply with legal requirements. Since they're not capable of storing even a modest JPEG, of course, that's moot since the referenced host would be the target of a takedown. If this wasn't a joke, it would make an interesting demonstration of how the value is purely the current social consensus: a receipt is of dubious value in any case but it would be especially unlikely to attract buyers when the target URL has been DMCAed.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    The JPEGs could go on filesharing networks. The NFT holders have an incentive to reseed them when necessary.
    - acdha 5y ago
      Sure, but you have to pay a fairly large fee for every transaction and since it's public the process of sending takedown notices can easily be automated. Are the bragging rights for a receipt really worth playing that game until you run out of money even if you do live in a jurisdiction where you can do that indefinitely without consequence?
      - DennisP 5y ago
        What I mean is, the NFT is implemented on a blockchain and holds the hash of the jpeg, but the jpeg can be hosted on a regular non-blockchain filesharing network for free. If it disappears then the NFT holder can just post it again, also for free. You only pay blockchain fees when you transfer NFT ownership. The jpeg could be on IPFS, bittorrent, freenet, whatever. Look it up by hash and verify the hash after getting it. If takedowns are a problem, use the more censorship-resistant options.
  - marcofatica 5y ago
    The images themselves are typically hosted on IPFS or another Blockchain file store so they too can't be removed
    - acdha 5y ago
      IPFS is not magic: it runs on servers and people have to pay for storage and bandwidth. If you're not regularly paying those people, your content will disappear unless it's among the most popular and not legally encumbered. If something is taken down for legal reasons, you're left with intersection of hosts who are in legal jurisdictions where they can blow off those complaints, don't have their IPs blocked, and are willing to host it for whatever you want to pay. That's not impossible but it's far from the solved problem NFT salespeople present it as, increasing in difficulty with the value of the content.
riffic 5y ago
did you not read Stage 7?: > Use project funds to complete leveraged buyout of Darden Restaurants, Olive Garden's parent company
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Perhaps, but as long as you're not on YouTube which will take you down regardless, brilliant satire like this is the one thing courts usually respect when it comes to fair use.
- troymc 5y ago
  Indeed, I suspect there's a good case for fair use as parody or satire (but I'm not a lawyer and this HN comment should not be interpreted or used as legal advice).
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Super hard to argue parody or satire when you're making real money from it.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      I am guessing then that Starbucks would have sued Dumb Starbucks eventually[0] if it didn’t shut down so quickly. “ Starbucks did not pursue legal action, although it did note to the press that it was "evaluating" the possibility while reinforcing that the "Starbucks" name is a protected trademark. Upon the episode's broadcast, it was acclaimed by television critics.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Starbucks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Starbucks
      - tsol 5y ago
        I would think so. Starbucks was likely evaluating who put the surpringly well put together satire store up, and whether it was just creating good press for them. And then comedy central(or maybe Absolutely productions) heard SB noticed and decided the joke run its course and it was better to avoid a suit. Eventually though, I assume Starbucks would also decide the joke run its course and it's more important to protect IP than let some production company keep running the joke.
- TigeriusKirk 5y ago
nhinck2 5y ago
I don't think DMCA is for trademark protection which is what this would be infringing. It does raise some interesting issues though. If Olive Garden is successful in any challenge of this where do the NFTs go? Are all the owners of the illegally trademarked NFTs responsible for destroying them or transferring ownership to Olive Garden? Given that their continued existence can imply that Olive Garden supports NFTs, which may damaging to their brand, how do they legally exercise their rights to remove their association with these NFTs? I wonder if the law regarding trademark counterfeiting could be stretched to cover this case.
jollybean 5y ago
More like this is a brilliant Social Media marketing campaign and huge bit of free PR for OG. I'm suspicious it was made by an agency at their behest.
otterley 5y ago
In this thread: Armchair HN wannabe lawyers incorrect each other about trademark law and fair use.
Keeeeeeeks 5y ago
this is fair use
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  no, it isn't. that's for news, criticism, research, and reporting. https://guides.nyu.edu/fairuse https://guides.nyu.edu/fairuse https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
spyder 5y ago
DMCA: no. Taking down the site and taking the domain name: yes. https://www.broadbandcloudsolutions.co.uk/what-happens-if-you-buy-a-trademarked-domain-name/ https://www.broadbandcloudsolutions.co.uk/what-happens-if-yo...

>Is this affiliated with Olive Garden? >No. This is just a DMCA takedown notice waiting to happen.

marcofatica 5y ago

They can take the site down but he NFTs can't be removed at this point

kjrose 5y ago
Weirdly the NFTs being forever is an argument in their favor. As hilarious as this whole charade is.
acdha 5y ago
If blockchains weren't so inefficient, there'd be an interesting debate about the difference between something being fully removed versus simply being unavailable to many people to comply with legal requirements. Since they're not capable of storing even a modest JPEG, of course, that's moot since the referenced host would be the target of a takedown. If this wasn't a joke, it would make an interesting demonstration of how the value is purely the current social consensus: a receipt is of dubious value in any case but it would be especially unlikely to attract buyers when the target URL has been DMCAed.
- DennisP 5y ago
  The JPEGs could go on filesharing networks. The NFT holders have an incentive to reseed them when necessary.
  - acdha 5y ago
    Sure, but you have to pay a fairly large fee for every transaction and since it's public the process of sending takedown notices can easily be automated. Are the bragging rights for a receipt really worth playing that game until you run out of money even if you do live in a jurisdiction where you can do that indefinitely without consequence?
    - DennisP 5y ago
      What I mean is, the NFT is implemented on a blockchain and holds the hash of the jpeg, but the jpeg can be hosted on a regular non-blockchain filesharing network for free. If it disappears then the NFT holder can just post it again, also for free. You only pay blockchain fees when you transfer NFT ownership. The jpeg could be on IPFS, bittorrent, freenet, whatever. Look it up by hash and verify the hash after getting it. If takedowns are a problem, use the more censorship-resistant options.
- marcofatica 5y ago
  The images themselves are typically hosted on IPFS or another Blockchain file store so they too can't be removed
  - acdha 5y ago
    IPFS is not magic: it runs on servers and people have to pay for storage and bandwidth. If you're not regularly paying those people, your content will disappear unless it's among the most popular and not legally encumbered. If something is taken down for legal reasons, you're left with intersection of hosts who are in legal jurisdictions where they can blow off those complaints, don't have their IPs blocked, and are willing to host it for whatever you want to pay. That's not impossible but it's far from the solved problem NFT salespeople present it as, increasing in difficulty with the value of the content.

riffic 5y ago

did you not read Stage 7?: > Use project funds to complete leveraged buyout of Darden Restaurants, Olive Garden's parent company

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

Perhaps, but as long as you're not on YouTube which will take you down regardless, brilliant satire like this is the one thing courts usually respect when it comes to fair use.

troymc 5y ago
Indeed, I suspect there's a good case for fair use as parody or satire (but I'm not a lawyer and this HN comment should not be interpreted or used as legal advice).
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Super hard to argue parody or satire when you're making real money from it.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    I am guessing then that Starbucks would have sued Dumb Starbucks eventually[0] if it didn’t shut down so quickly. “ Starbucks did not pursue legal action, although it did note to the press that it was "evaluating" the possibility while reinforcing that the "Starbucks" name is a protected trademark. Upon the episode's broadcast, it was acclaimed by television critics.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Starbucks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_Starbucks
    - tsol 5y ago
      I would think so. Starbucks was likely evaluating who put the surpringly well put together satire store up, and whether it was just creating good press for them. And then comedy central(or maybe Absolutely productions) heard SB noticed and decided the joke run its course and it was better to avoid a suit. Eventually though, I assume Starbucks would also decide the joke run its course and it's more important to protect IP than let some production company keep running the joke.
TigeriusKirk 5y ago

nhinck2 5y ago

I don't think DMCA is for trademark protection which is what this would be infringing. It does raise some interesting issues though. If Olive Garden is successful in any challenge of this where do the NFTs go? Are all the owners of the illegally trademarked NFTs responsible for destroying them or transferring ownership to Olive Garden? Given that their continued existence can imply that Olive Garden supports NFTs, which may damaging to their brand, how do they legally exercise their rights to remove their association with these NFTs? I wonder if the law regarding trademark counterfeiting could be stretched to cover this case.

jollybean 5y ago

More like this is a brilliant Social Media marketing campaign and huge bit of free PR for OG. I'm suspicious it was made by an agency at their behest.

otterley 5y ago

In this thread: Armchair HN wannabe lawyers incorrect each other about trademark law and fair use.

Keeeeeeeks 5y ago

this is fair use

JohnHaugeland 5y ago
no, it isn't. that's for news, criticism, research, and reporting. https://guides.nyu.edu/fairuse https://guides.nyu.edu/fairuse https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

spyder 5y ago

DMCA: no. Taking down the site and taking the domain name: yes. https://www.broadbandcloudsolutions.co.uk/what-happens-if-you-buy-a-trademarked-domain-name/ https://www.broadbandcloudsolutions.co.uk/what-happens-if-yo...