3 ms·

> “We can’t just scan it and put it on the internet,” Fang said. But by raising the money as a DAO, Fang said they hoped to show the various estates and stakeho

> “We can’t just scan it and put it on the internet,” Fang said. But by raising the money as a DAO, Fang said they hoped to show the various estates and stakeholders that there is a massive online interest in making the bible more accessible to the public. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amansethi/spicedao-dunedao-soby https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amansethi/spicedao-dune... I don't know what they're doing, but it seems that they are at least a bit aware that they don't own the rights. Who exactly are they trying to convince, and about what? I mean they don't just need the rights to the art in the book itself, but they also need to get the movie/TV rights for Dune itself. Is this really spending €2.6M just to get a foot in the door, to be able to spend, what, another $200M for the actual rights? But even then, why do they think this DAO is the best way to execute this vision? They could just go "oh, people are interested in Dune? Ok, let's make a movie, but without involving these DAO people". Oh wait, there already is a Dune series of movies currently being made/in theaters. But also: The contents have been on the internet for years, apparently: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNGBuasYa_WETf7sF6Q9W3SN-X7oiB3jrh5QDMMNQPQl9xgS3cua--BhRr-BImP1w?pli=1&key=QmE1WTR0Z0FtZVFIalpsYVZ3LXFXMS1DUmNiUnR3 https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNGBuasYa_WETf7sF6Q9W3S... (from the twitter thread)

libertine 5y ago
>I don't know what they're doing Now it will be hosted on some other server as well (THE REAL DECENTRALIZED SERVER) but wrapped into some NFT, where they will sell each page - or even better - each square of the storyboard, coated into some fucked up story like: "You can own a piece of a future TV Show based on this story board!" And they will probably come out profiting because people will buy this illusion. Edit: From a quick Google search there's around 3000 drawings, so 3000 NFTs at some absurd price that people will want for a piece of the pipe dream. They didn't even had to pay an artist or create a story this time around... Beeple sold 5000 renders for 69 million.
- knorker 5y ago
  Ah, that's interesting. They can't, of course, sell the images themselves; they don't hold the copyright. But they can sell URLs referring to the content. That's pretty clever. I mean it's super dumb, but it's clever. By that I mean that an NFT whose content is an URL to an image you don't own, is dumb. But it's clever to "mint" these, and you'll find more fools to buy the NFTs if you give the appearance of legitimacy. In other words: They have no more rights to sell NFTs for the contents than I do, but they'll be more successful at implying to buyers that they do. The most interesting thing about NFTs (and most blockchain tech) is the question "is this actually fraud, or is it merely stupid?". It's philosophy about the meaning of "fraud".
  - libertine 5y ago
    I don't know the legal intricacies of this, like to what extent can they sell not the content but the actual physical square piece of the book, under an NFT? For example, a company called MSCHF sold 999 fake Warhol drawings and 1 real[0], all mixed up so no one knows which one is the real one, for 250$ each... can they do this? Is this legal? At least people were aware of it, so I doubt it's fraud. Here's the math of it: - they paid 8,125$ for the original; - they sold 1000 for 250$ = 250,000$ - they profited 250,000$ - 8,125$ = 241k$ Of course this was also a mix of a PR stunt, still, if you can do PR stunts and profit... I mean... isn't this what Supreme has been doing for years? So I don't even think the legality of it all is a issue, because has you hinted, people are deliberately rolling into this...stupidity(?). I think all of these use similar emotional mechanisms of gambling, which if you think about it, most of the current collectibles market nowadays is gambling for everyone, kids included. [0]https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/art-pranksters-sell-one-real-warhol-print-amid-999-fake-ones-180978975/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/art-pranksters-sel...
    - nkrisc 5y ago
      Sounds like it was just a raffle. $250 for a 1 in 1,000 chance to win a prize worth ~$8,125. Happens all the time in school fundraisers and other community events. Of course they didn’t need to use a blockchain or cryptocurrency to hold a simple raffle, but here we are. Also in a raffle they usually just tell you when you’ve won. Better odds and potential return dollar for dollar than the lottery, though.
      - knorker 5y ago
        But a raffle doesn't have the copyright infringement. You can't make a bunch of copies of a Disney movie but with the ending cut off, and have them be the "losing" consolation prizes.
        nkrisc 5y ago
        Right, it’s a raffle with more steps and dubious legality. Seems unnecessary when a regular raffle would have sufficed, but I suppose that wouldn’t have got attention.

libertine 5y ago

>I don't know what they're doing Now it will be hosted on some other server as well (THE REAL DECENTRALIZED SERVER) but wrapped into some NFT, where they will sell each page - or even better - each square of the storyboard, coated into some fucked up story like: "You can own a piece of a future TV Show based on this story board!" And they will probably come out profiting because people will buy this illusion. Edit: From a quick Google search there's around 3000 drawings, so 3000 NFTs at some absurd price that people will want for a piece of the pipe dream. They didn't even had to pay an artist or create a story this time around... Beeple sold 5000 renders for 69 million.

knorker 5y ago
Ah, that's interesting. They can't, of course, sell the images themselves; they don't hold the copyright. But they can sell URLs referring to the content. That's pretty clever. I mean it's super dumb, but it's clever. By that I mean that an NFT whose content is an URL to an image you don't own, is dumb. But it's clever to "mint" these, and you'll find more fools to buy the NFTs if you give the appearance of legitimacy. In other words: They have no more rights to sell NFTs for the contents than I do, but they'll be more successful at implying to buyers that they do. The most interesting thing about NFTs (and most blockchain tech) is the question "is this actually fraud, or is it merely stupid?". It's philosophy about the meaning of "fraud".
- libertine 5y ago
  I don't know the legal intricacies of this, like to what extent can they sell not the content but the actual physical square piece of the book, under an NFT? For example, a company called MSCHF sold 999 fake Warhol drawings and 1 real[0], all mixed up so no one knows which one is the real one, for 250$ each... can they do this? Is this legal? At least people were aware of it, so I doubt it's fraud. Here's the math of it: - they paid 8,125$ for the original; - they sold 1000 for 250$ = 250,000$ - they profited 250,000$ - 8,125$ = 241k$ Of course this was also a mix of a PR stunt, still, if you can do PR stunts and profit... I mean... isn't this what Supreme has been doing for years? So I don't even think the legality of it all is a issue, because has you hinted, people are deliberately rolling into this...stupidity(?). I think all of these use similar emotional mechanisms of gambling, which if you think about it, most of the current collectibles market nowadays is gambling for everyone, kids included. [0]https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/art-pranksters-sell-one-real-warhol-print-amid-999-fake-ones-180978975/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/art-pranksters-sel...
  - nkrisc 5y ago
    Sounds like it was just a raffle. $250 for a 1 in 1,000 chance to win a prize worth ~$8,125. Happens all the time in school fundraisers and other community events. Of course they didn’t need to use a blockchain or cryptocurrency to hold a simple raffle, but here we are. Also in a raffle they usually just tell you when you’ve won. Better odds and potential return dollar for dollar than the lottery, though.
    - knorker 5y ago
      But a raffle doesn't have the copyright infringement. You can't make a bunch of copies of a Disney movie but with the ending cut off, and have them be the "losing" consolation prizes.
      - nkrisc 5y ago
        Right, it’s a raffle with more steps and dubious legality. Seems unnecessary when a regular raffle would have sufficed, but I suppose that wouldn’t have got attention.