4 ms·
Sure if we pretend really hard. The thing is, NFT folks can't have it both ways. The advocates say it's not a URL - it's the art you're buying, that it's going
by arcticbull 5y ago
Sure if we pretend really hard.
The thing is, NFT folks can't have it both ways. The advocates say it's not a URL - it's the art you're buying, that it's going to support artists, that everyone can share in the rewards.
As soon as something goes wrong, well it's actually a URL so take it up with Google, a centralized service, and file a DMCA take-down.
No matter what these grifters are taking advantage of the artist and the buyer.
I'm loving this web3 thing.
- anonymousab 5y ago> The advocates say it's not a URL - it's the art you're buying I've found that most NFT advocates will agree that you are only paying for a receipt on the blockchain that some central service like OpenSeas equates to you 'owning' a piece of art, and maybe the original artist too, but only conceptually and not legally (services that include signing over copyright notwithstanding). That this is mostly a status symbol for the wealthy to dump cash into, like digital diamonds, is also a not uncommon view - but the difference is that they think that is a valuable end unto itself, and people like myself don't.
- politician 5y agoI mean, at some point isn't it reasonable to expect people to do some basic due diligence before dropping 10k on some metadata. If they don't, who's fault is that really? Read the spec. Jeez (not aimed at you, just generalized exasperation). https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/standards/tokens/erc-721 https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/standards/tokens/erc...
- Gigachad 5y agoIf people did due diligence, there would be no such thing as an NFT.
- politician 5y agoI wouldn't go that far. I think there's legitimate value in a digital product that is one-of-a-kind for which the creator is cryptographically prevented from duplicating in an undetectable way. I think there's also value in the idea of some attributes of the instance not being settled or known until the initial transaction completes. This early phase where NFTs contain URLs to images hosted off-chain is just a situation where an example used to explain the concept ("it's like art") blew up in a completely hilarious way.
- basch 5y agohow is buying a URL from an artist not supporting the artist. whether you are buying metadata or data seems irrelevant, if the claim is that the money supports the creator through patronage.
- bdcravens 5y agoAs others have pointed out, it's sometimes NOT the artist selling the URL.
- basch 5y agothats a completely different conversation buying from the imposter artist obviously doesnt provide patronage to the original artist. that applies to both the NFT world and any other part of commerce in the world. people arguing here are conflating three or four arguments to create a disingenuous point. the "cant have it both ways" quip stems from a false dichotomy. . you are buying a url not a picture. correct buying a url from the original artist supports the original artist. correct buying a url from the wrong artist does not support the original artist. correct there is no logical inconsistency or contradiction. advocates can claim you are buying the picture at the end of the url all the want, but unless the sales contract includes exclusive reproduction rights, that claim is incorrect and has nothing to do with patronage itself.
- bdcravens 5y agoI would agree that if you buy a URL, you are supporting whoever is selling the URL, and are purchasing nothing more.