3 ms·

Why is this on hn front page? There is no need in giving attention to stories like this. This is nothing but short-lived internet drama that's easy to make fun

by WHA8m 5y ago

Why is this on hn front page? There is no need in giving attention to stories like this. This is nothing but short-lived internet drama that's easy to make fun of.

stareblinkstare 5y ago
You've answered your own question.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Traster 5y ago
I think it's actually interesting to see how NFTs cope with the real copyright issues that they claim to be solving.
- WHA8m 5y ago
  Surely, interesting questions and topics can arise from the NFT space - like any other tech, really. But that's not the question. Did this particular story gave you any new insight into copyright issues with NFTs? For me it didn't.
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    It did for me. It's interesting to see how the blockchain works out when it is applied to a real world problem. In this case, it's art ownership. Arguably the low-hanging fruit as far as blockchain applications go. I see real value of blockchain as a technology, but this makes me think, maybe it's value is more like a trustworthy public database and less like a new economy.
    - WHA8m 5y ago
      >It did for me. It was not meant in a rhetoric way and I didn't meant to discredit anyone. If you got value out of it, that's good. HN has a rather critical approach against NFT and crypto space - not the technology, but the market - and I completely agree. The article bothered me a bit, because if we spend time on short-lived stories like this, we'll spend less time discussing on what's actually there to criticize. Giving to much attention to drama like this is kind of (passively) down playing the real problems. However, what I said with this paragraph is not to be given too much weight. It just rubbed me a bit. I'm not outright anti. Happy new year, Bobby and Traster!
- vmception 5y ago
  Its not a copyright issue. Derivative works are legal. Bored Apes even understands that and isn't embarrassing themselves over a copyright battle because the precedent is clear, they never even contacted them. Its these two copycats fighting with each other and being silly. For the consumer/investor, none of this matters because the technology solves the problem here. It is extremely easy to prove which one is the real Bored Ape (none of these two), and it is easy to prove that the one in the consumer's possession is a real one too (appraisers and insurance and distrust in the marketplace is disintermediated). Its all about the transaction hash which cannot be modified, it isn't about the image. Its just being in the collection. It really is just irrelevant drama that has nothing to do with NFTs or copyright. One of the copycats made 7 figures from sales, for who knows what reason, hundreds of people paying a few hundred dollars and taking a bet. Good for them, yes this is something you can do, or you can just assume its "all wash trading" (something other non-player characters say). Doesn't really matter.
- angio 5y ago
  No NFT project claims that, they're pretty explicit that they own the copyright on the images and you can't use them for commercial purpose. There's only a few niche NFT collections that also sell right to the image you're buying.
rsynnott 5y ago
This is something that VCs are pouring vast amounts of money into, and that a vocal contingent is insisting is The Future. That probably makes it relevant enough.
- WHA8m 5y ago
  I understand and mostly agree, but this article just tells a light-hearted story we can all laugh about. That's not criticizing, but distracting from actual problems that need to be adressed. So I think this article would be in said VCs favor, if any
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    I mean, I think it’s quite interesting, and points to a fundamental problem in the whole premise of NFTs. And raises interesting questions about central control. YMMV.

by WHA8m 5y ago

Why is this on hn front page? There is no need in giving attention to stories like this. This is nothing but short-lived internet drama that's easy to make fun of.

stareblinkstare 5y ago

You've answered your own question.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Traster 5y ago

I think it's actually interesting to see how NFTs cope with the real copyright issues that they claim to be solving.

WHA8m 5y ago
Surely, interesting questions and topics can arise from the NFT space - like any other tech, really. But that's not the question. Did this particular story gave you any new insight into copyright issues with NFTs? For me it didn't.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  It did for me. It's interesting to see how the blockchain works out when it is applied to a real world problem. In this case, it's art ownership. Arguably the low-hanging fruit as far as blockchain applications go. I see real value of blockchain as a technology, but this makes me think, maybe it's value is more like a trustworthy public database and less like a new economy.
  - WHA8m 5y ago
    >It did for me. It was not meant in a rhetoric way and I didn't meant to discredit anyone. If you got value out of it, that's good. HN has a rather critical approach against NFT and crypto space - not the technology, but the market - and I completely agree. The article bothered me a bit, because if we spend time on short-lived stories like this, we'll spend less time discussing on what's actually there to criticize. Giving to much attention to drama like this is kind of (passively) down playing the real problems. However, what I said with this paragraph is not to be given too much weight. It just rubbed me a bit. I'm not outright anti. Happy new year, Bobby and Traster!
vmception 5y ago
Its not a copyright issue. Derivative works are legal. Bored Apes even understands that and isn't embarrassing themselves over a copyright battle because the precedent is clear, they never even contacted them. Its these two copycats fighting with each other and being silly. For the consumer/investor, none of this matters because the technology solves the problem here. It is extremely easy to prove which one is the real Bored Ape (none of these two), and it is easy to prove that the one in the consumer's possession is a real one too (appraisers and insurance and distrust in the marketplace is disintermediated). Its all about the transaction hash which cannot be modified, it isn't about the image. Its just being in the collection. It really is just irrelevant drama that has nothing to do with NFTs or copyright. One of the copycats made 7 figures from sales, for who knows what reason, hundreds of people paying a few hundred dollars and taking a bet. Good for them, yes this is something you can do, or you can just assume its "all wash trading" (something other non-player characters say). Doesn't really matter.
angio 5y ago
No NFT project claims that, they're pretty explicit that they own the copyright on the images and you can't use them for commercial purpose. There's only a few niche NFT collections that also sell right to the image you're buying.

rsynnott 5y ago

This is something that VCs are pouring vast amounts of money into, and that a vocal contingent is insisting is The Future. That probably makes it relevant enough.

WHA8m 5y ago
I understand and mostly agree, but this article just tells a light-hearted story we can all laugh about. That's not criticizing, but distracting from actual problems that need to be adressed. So I think this article would be in said VCs favor, if any
- rsynnott 5y ago
  I mean, I think it’s quite interesting, and points to a fundamental problem in the whole premise of NFTs. And raises interesting questions about central control. YMMV.