4 ms·

Patents are enforced by law. There doesn't seem to be any equivalent for NFTs. Many of the criticisms are valid because of that.

dvh1990 5y ago
Something must first be invented, then used, then abused, before laws are enacted.
- antonvs 5y ago
  That only works for things that don't depend on a legal framework to be useful. Some of these blockchain applications are essentially proofs of concept waiting for a legal framework to support them. But until that framework exists, it doesn't make much sense to use the applications for anything that involves real value.
- it_does_follow 5y ago
  You're thinking of regulations. In basically every manifestation the primary function of the state is the enforcement of basic property law. If you don't have that you have warlords/oligarchs fighting with each other constantly over who owns what (since they each individually must act as enforcer). As far as enforcement of property right, the "distributed" model is well understood and typically leads to a much worse situations than the centralized version.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  We banned insurance companies from making decisions on genetic information long before any actually tried it. No one had to make a personal nuclear weapon for us to make it illegal. Plenty of examples of how this isn't true in society. A significant potential and likely harm is enough to consider preemptively regulating.
woofcat 5y ago
This is perhaps my confusion around the whole NFT thing. How is it in /any/ way different than a boiler plate contract around "ownership". I.e. when my photographer took photos at my wedding I signed a contract that I "own" those photos and all those rights. I can move then, alter them, back them up, sell them to getty, or whatever. If I draw a piece of art, even digitally I own the copyright. I sell it to someone and now they own it and inherit all those rights... Is NFT just simply creating a "Block Chain" for this? and if so... is it even needed? What value do I gain from using a NFT over you know a signed PDF that would actually be backed up in court if it came to it? Is the vision that there is some hot market place for art and other assets that are traded so frequently that we need a live 24/7 market and exchange for them?
- miracle2k 5y ago
  > Is the vision that there is some hot market place for art and other assets that are traded so frequently that we need a live 24/7 market and exchange for them? Sort of. You can and people have sold digital art (note this is not the same as owning the copyright) with contracts before, but NFTs make it accessible in a way that inspired a much larger group of people to participate (and yes, speculate).
- grumbel 5y ago
  A signed PDF can be copied, but an NFT can not. That's what makes them useful. They allow you to sell digital things with the same freedom, securities and limitations you would get with physical items (i.e. First-sale doctrine). The NFT represents a digitized form of "ownership". Where things get a bit complicated is that the NFT just grants you ownership of the NFT itself and nothing else. The interpretation of what the NFT represents happens completely outside of the system. The NFT is thus not a replacement for a contract, but a way to move that contract into a digital marketplace. For a practical example, take the difference between DVDs and buying a streaming movie on Amazon. If Amazon would sell digital movies in the form of NFTs, people could buy them. If they want to watch the movie, they show Amazon that they have ownership of the NFT and Amazon lets them stream it. When they are bored with it, they can sell the NFT to somebody else and then the new owner can show that NFT to Amazon to proof ownership and watch a stream of it. Now in reality, this isn't how NFTs are used (yet?). The way NFTs are used right now is really more like trading-cards. Little novelty things that people might see value in, pay for to support the creator or just do money laundering with or whatever. Most NFTs do not give you access to anything, as whatever they are associated with is already in the public anyway. The NFT does not represent copyright or ownership of the item it points to, but it has the technical capabilities to do so when the right legal paper work is attached to the NFT.
  - phainopepla 5y ago
    Why would Amazon (or any producer/distributor of digital content) want to facilitate second-hand sales of a product they otherwise control the sale and distribution of? How does this benefit Amazon more than controlling access to the content?
analog31 5y ago
It's been my understanding that the blockchain is precisely an experiment in what can be accomplished without laws and enforcement, albeit on top of a mountain of conventional infrastructure. Arbitraging energy prices, and laundering money, are only two possible uses. NFT's are another. A decentralized patent system without enforcement was previously something we could only imagine, but now we can try it out.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Isn't the whole point of a patent system the enforcement part? If you don't care about enforcement, you can just publish ideas to your personal blog or arxiv or whatever.
  - analog31 5y ago
    That would have been my guess too, but it doesn't preclude the experiment. I personally think there's more to it than pure enforcement. Coherent standards for what counts as an invention, and a well defined expiry term, are two things that attracted adherence to the patent system. Without them, patents would be too much of a mess to enforce. Those things have evolved over time within the existing patent system, and depend on not only statute but also case law. I don't see how anything like that can build up independent of having a robust government operating over the long term. On the other hand we already have "copyright without enforcement" for recorded music, via file sharing. Disclosure: I have 20 patents.
  - JJMcJ 5y ago
    Don Lancaster, who doesn't think much of patents, recommended when you have an idea, publish it immediately. That puts it in the "prior art" and makes it harder to enforce a patent covering the concepts.
    - analog31 5y ago
      Indeed, "defensive publication" can be a viable IP strategy when you're working in a quickly evolving space. Another is a provisional patent application which is much cheaper than a full blown application. It's still worth at least chatting with a patent lawyer (which I'm not) to make sure what you think is sufficient as a defensive publication, actually is.

dvh1990 5y ago

Something must first be invented, then used, then abused, before laws are enacted.

antonvs 5y ago
That only works for things that don't depend on a legal framework to be useful. Some of these blockchain applications are essentially proofs of concept waiting for a legal framework to support them. But until that framework exists, it doesn't make much sense to use the applications for anything that involves real value.
it_does_follow 5y ago
You're thinking of regulations. In basically every manifestation the primary function of the state is the enforcement of basic property law. If you don't have that you have warlords/oligarchs fighting with each other constantly over who owns what (since they each individually must act as enforcer). As far as enforcement of property right, the "distributed" model is well understood and typically leads to a much worse situations than the centralized version.
ceejayoz 5y ago
We banned insurance companies from making decisions on genetic information long before any actually tried it. No one had to make a personal nuclear weapon for us to make it illegal. Plenty of examples of how this isn't true in society. A significant potential and likely harm is enough to consider preemptively regulating.

woofcat 5y ago

This is perhaps my confusion around the whole NFT thing. How is it in /any/ way different than a boiler plate contract around "ownership". I.e. when my photographer took photos at my wedding I signed a contract that I "own" those photos and all those rights. I can move then, alter them, back them up, sell them to getty, or whatever. If I draw a piece of art, even digitally I own the copyright. I sell it to someone and now they own it and inherit all those rights... Is NFT just simply creating a "Block Chain" for this? and if so... is it even needed? What value do I gain from using a NFT over you know a signed PDF that would actually be backed up in court if it came to it? Is the vision that there is some hot market place for art and other assets that are traded so frequently that we need a live 24/7 market and exchange for them?

miracle2k 5y ago
> Is the vision that there is some hot market place for art and other assets that are traded so frequently that we need a live 24/7 market and exchange for them? Sort of. You can and people have sold digital art (note this is not the same as owning the copyright) with contracts before, but NFTs make it accessible in a way that inspired a much larger group of people to participate (and yes, speculate).
grumbel 5y ago
A signed PDF can be copied, but an NFT can not. That's what makes them useful. They allow you to sell digital things with the same freedom, securities and limitations you would get with physical items (i.e. First-sale doctrine). The NFT represents a digitized form of "ownership". Where things get a bit complicated is that the NFT just grants you ownership of the NFT itself and nothing else. The interpretation of what the NFT represents happens completely outside of the system. The NFT is thus not a replacement for a contract, but a way to move that contract into a digital marketplace. For a practical example, take the difference between DVDs and buying a streaming movie on Amazon. If Amazon would sell digital movies in the form of NFTs, people could buy them. If they want to watch the movie, they show Amazon that they have ownership of the NFT and Amazon lets them stream it. When they are bored with it, they can sell the NFT to somebody else and then the new owner can show that NFT to Amazon to proof ownership and watch a stream of it. Now in reality, this isn't how NFTs are used (yet?). The way NFTs are used right now is really more like trading-cards. Little novelty things that people might see value in, pay for to support the creator or just do money laundering with or whatever. Most NFTs do not give you access to anything, as whatever they are associated with is already in the public anyway. The NFT does not represent copyright or ownership of the item it points to, but it has the technical capabilities to do so when the right legal paper work is attached to the NFT.
- phainopepla 5y ago
  Why would Amazon (or any producer/distributor of digital content) want to facilitate second-hand sales of a product they otherwise control the sale and distribution of? How does this benefit Amazon more than controlling access to the content?

analog31 5y ago

It's been my understanding that the blockchain is precisely an experiment in what can be accomplished without laws and enforcement, albeit on top of a mountain of conventional infrastructure. Arbitraging energy prices, and laundering money, are only two possible uses. NFT's are another. A decentralized patent system without enforcement was previously something we could only imagine, but now we can try it out.

UncleMeat 5y ago
Isn't the whole point of a patent system the enforcement part? If you don't care about enforcement, you can just publish ideas to your personal blog or arxiv or whatever.
- analog31 5y ago
  That would have been my guess too, but it doesn't preclude the experiment. I personally think there's more to it than pure enforcement. Coherent standards for what counts as an invention, and a well defined expiry term, are two things that attracted adherence to the patent system. Without them, patents would be too much of a mess to enforce. Those things have evolved over time within the existing patent system, and depend on not only statute but also case law. I don't see how anything like that can build up independent of having a robust government operating over the long term. On the other hand we already have "copyright without enforcement" for recorded music, via file sharing. Disclosure: I have 20 patents.
- JJMcJ 5y ago
  Don Lancaster, who doesn't think much of patents, recommended when you have an idea, publish it immediately. That puts it in the "prior art" and makes it harder to enforce a patent covering the concepts.
  - analog31 5y ago
    Indeed, "defensive publication" can be a viable IP strategy when you're working in a quickly evolving space. Another is a provisional patent application which is much cheaper than a full blown application. It's still worth at least chatting with a patent lawyer (which I'm not) to make sure what you think is sufficient as a defensive publication, actually is.