5 ms·

Yes. I don't understand the need to create an NFT. What problem does this resolve.

swalsh 5y ago
Read the documentation for creating one, it might answer some questions. https://docs.openzeppelin.com/contracts/4.x/erc721 https://docs.openzeppelin.com/contracts/4.x/erc721
- adabaed 5y ago
  That's not the problem, but thanks!
slmjkdbtl 5y ago
Here's my take on a short answer: It satisfies the desire of vanity for the consumers. When you purchase an NFT it means people will acknowledge (backed by the blockchain) you're the only person in the world to "own" this particular item. The need to create NFT is to get money from whatever you created, if there's anyone find it interesting and wants to "own" it.
- adabaed 5y ago
  Isn't more effective to use standard copyright protection?
  - bern4444 5y ago
    yes, and I think NFTs and copyright are very similar but anyone can buy an NFT very easily - you just pay for it. To get copyright protection on something you may need to hire a lawyer, file some papers etc. Maybe NFTs are more similar to a combination of letters of authenticity and a deed when you buy a painting or something at auction stating that the thing you have is real and that you are the owner.
    - adabaed 5y ago
      Thank you.
    - brirec 5y ago
      In the majority of countries, and according to the Berne Convention, copyright is granted automatically to an original work upon its creation. If I make a graphic or write a poem (or a computer program), I automatically hold copyright protection. There are indeed exceptions, but I doubt any of those exceptions are going to care about NFTs either.
    - viraptor 5y ago
      Until at least one person tests this in court, it's safer to assume that NFTs don't give you absolutely any legal rights. And if the only thing you have is NFT, the author can sue you for copyright violation.
- bootlooped 5y ago
  But NFTs can be copied. In which case a third party outside the blockchain must attest to which NFT is original or legitimate. That kills the whole proof of ownership angle, I think. Having an NFT only means you control a digital file asserting that you "own" something else; what is meant by "own" and if the assertion is true is not knowable without off-chain information. I'll give you that it does allow creators to extract value from their work.
  - mike741 5y ago
    That 2nd sentence is incorrect. The blockchain is already the 3rd party attesting to the NFT's legitimacy. The purpose of the decentralized blockchain is to remove the need for 3rd party validation. Yes the NFT can be copied, and yes the digital asset that the NFT represents can be copied, BUT the NFT's record in the blockchain can NOT be copied. What is meant by "own" is that the owner's address is tied to the NFT in the blockchain record.
    - viraptor 5y ago
      I'd replace "NFT legitimacy" with "NFT correctness". Unless you met the author and seen them create the NFT, you don't really know if it's legitimate (as in created by the original author) or not. The market being flooded by random fakes and actual authors having to put their higher quality art behind a paywall is a serious problem these days. For real legitimacy of the source, you need either the author or a trusted third party.
    - bootlooped 5y ago
      I think in most cases with NFTs, "own" is being defined at ownership of the off-chain artwork (or other thing). I think people are being sold the idea that they're buying a certificate that proves they own (in some sense of the word) the artwork, but in reality they're being sold a certificate that proves they own the certificate.
kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
“I need more money”
stevep98 5y ago
If you have a digital work of art, an NFT can help you with two things: forms a binding between the rights-holder and the work of art. The NFT can also encode various information and other licensing decisions made by the rights holder for example: - what is the name of the license covering the work of art - who is the original author - what date was the work created - what if anything was it derived from - are private or public performances allowed - is copying allowed - does the license allow for sublicenses or transfers And, as we get into the money question: - what is the cost to play, display, or perform this work - who should be paid I could imagine, say, iTunes being able to play NFT protected works, and being able to collect a fee from the user to be able to play it. In theory this would go directly to the rights holder, which would perhaps be the original author rather than a music publisher. Another example I saw was that artists could create limited editions, say of 1000 of a digital image. If I wanted to display these on my TV, I would have to have own the NFT. The NFT addresses the problem of how Samsung figures out how to pay the rights holder. Usually after a work of art is sold, the original author is out of the picture. But, they could encode an NFT so that whenever the ownership is transferred, the original creator gets a slice. So, the original creator would continue to benefit from works which appreciate in value.
- obstacle1 5y ago
  Re: your last example. Where is the incentive for a company to actually bother reaching into the ledger to determine who holds royalty rights? The underlying media pointed to by the NFT is not restricted, it's infinitely reproducible and thus valueless. Why not just right-click save-as and display the media, bypassing the metadata encoded in the NFT? It seems like there'd have to be some person or collection of persons who are responsible for enforcing that the company treat the terms of the NFT as a binding agreement. Using force, if necessary, either legal or physical. Something almost like... a legal system associated with a state. Which would be centralized. Which would beg the question, what's the value of the decentralized ledger in that case?
  - stevep98 5y ago
    > The underlying media pointed to by the NFT is not restricted, it's infinitely reproducible and thus valueless It is protected by copyright or other IP law, and not valueless. I would say that the incentive is that they can access a market of digital products without fear of being sued by the rights-owner. The value of the NFT approach is that it can all be codified and automated so that a) as a creator I can get paid for my content without having to negotiate contracts with every distribution channel b) distribution channels get access to every piece of content. Not saying that NFT's will work in the end, but that's my understanding of it. In simple terms, though, it's just codifying the license terms, so that at least has some value as digital media grows and content creation becomes decentralized.

Read the documentation for creating one, it might answer some questions. https://docs.openzeppelin.com/contracts/4.x/erc721 https://docs.openzeppelin.com/contracts/4.x/erc721

adabaed 5y ago
That's not the problem, but thanks!

slmjkdbtl 5y ago

Here's my take on a short answer: It satisfies the desire of vanity for the consumers. When you purchase an NFT it means people will acknowledge (backed by the blockchain) you're the only person in the world to "own" this particular item. The need to create NFT is to get money from whatever you created, if there's anyone find it interesting and wants to "own" it.

adabaed 5y ago
Isn't more effective to use standard copyright protection?
- bern4444 5y ago
  yes, and I think NFTs and copyright are very similar but anyone can buy an NFT very easily - you just pay for it. To get copyright protection on something you may need to hire a lawyer, file some papers etc. Maybe NFTs are more similar to a combination of letters of authenticity and a deed when you buy a painting or something at auction stating that the thing you have is real and that you are the owner.
  - adabaed 5y ago
    Thank you.
  - brirec 5y ago
    In the majority of countries, and according to the Berne Convention, copyright is granted automatically to an original work upon its creation. If I make a graphic or write a poem (or a computer program), I automatically hold copyright protection. There are indeed exceptions, but I doubt any of those exceptions are going to care about NFTs either.
  - viraptor 5y ago
    Until at least one person tests this in court, it's safer to assume that NFTs don't give you absolutely any legal rights. And if the only thing you have is NFT, the author can sue you for copyright violation.
bootlooped 5y ago
But NFTs can be copied. In which case a third party outside the blockchain must attest to which NFT is original or legitimate. That kills the whole proof of ownership angle, I think. Having an NFT only means you control a digital file asserting that you "own" something else; what is meant by "own" and if the assertion is true is not knowable without off-chain information. I'll give you that it does allow creators to extract value from their work.
- mike741 5y ago
  That 2nd sentence is incorrect. The blockchain is already the 3rd party attesting to the NFT's legitimacy. The purpose of the decentralized blockchain is to remove the need for 3rd party validation. Yes the NFT can be copied, and yes the digital asset that the NFT represents can be copied, BUT the NFT's record in the blockchain can NOT be copied. What is meant by "own" is that the owner's address is tied to the NFT in the blockchain record.
  - viraptor 5y ago
    I'd replace "NFT legitimacy" with "NFT correctness". Unless you met the author and seen them create the NFT, you don't really know if it's legitimate (as in created by the original author) or not. The market being flooded by random fakes and actual authors having to put their higher quality art behind a paywall is a serious problem these days. For real legitimacy of the source, you need either the author or a trusted third party.
  - bootlooped 5y ago
    I think in most cases with NFTs, "own" is being defined at ownership of the off-chain artwork (or other thing). I think people are being sold the idea that they're buying a certificate that proves they own (in some sense of the word) the artwork, but in reality they're being sold a certificate that proves they own the certificate.

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago

“I need more money”

stevep98 5y ago

If you have a digital work of art, an NFT can help you with two things: forms a binding between the rights-holder and the work of art. The NFT can also encode various information and other licensing decisions made by the rights holder for example: - what is the name of the license covering the work of art - who is the original author - what date was the work created - what if anything was it derived from - are private or public performances allowed - is copying allowed - does the license allow for sublicenses or transfers And, as we get into the money question: - what is the cost to play, display, or perform this work - who should be paid I could imagine, say, iTunes being able to play NFT protected works, and being able to collect a fee from the user to be able to play it. In theory this would go directly to the rights holder, which would perhaps be the original author rather than a music publisher. Another example I saw was that artists could create limited editions, say of 1000 of a digital image. If I wanted to display these on my TV, I would have to have own the NFT. The NFT addresses the problem of how Samsung figures out how to pay the rights holder. Usually after a work of art is sold, the original author is out of the picture. But, they could encode an NFT so that whenever the ownership is transferred, the original creator gets a slice. So, the original creator would continue to benefit from works which appreciate in value.

obstacle1 5y ago
Re: your last example. Where is the incentive for a company to actually bother reaching into the ledger to determine who holds royalty rights? The underlying media pointed to by the NFT is not restricted, it's infinitely reproducible and thus valueless. Why not just right-click save-as and display the media, bypassing the metadata encoded in the NFT? It seems like there'd have to be some person or collection of persons who are responsible for enforcing that the company treat the terms of the NFT as a binding agreement. Using force, if necessary, either legal or physical. Something almost like... a legal system associated with a state. Which would be centralized. Which would beg the question, what's the value of the decentralized ledger in that case?
- stevep98 5y ago
  > The underlying media pointed to by the NFT is not restricted, it's infinitely reproducible and thus valueless It is protected by copyright or other IP law, and not valueless. I would say that the incentive is that they can access a market of digital products without fear of being sued by the rights-owner. The value of the NFT approach is that it can all be codified and automated so that a) as a creator I can get paid for my content without having to negotiate contracts with every distribution channel b) distribution channels get access to every piece of content. Not saying that NFT's will work in the end, but that's my understanding of it. In simple terms, though, it's just codifying the license terms, so that at least has some value as digital media grows and content creation becomes decentralized.