3 ms·

It seems to me that the communication both in the original tweet and the subsequent communication is consistent: - They did not think it gives them to copyrigh

It seems to me that the communication both in the original tweet and the subsequent communication is consistent: - They did not think it gives them to copyright. - They want to create /original/ IP merely /inspired/ by the book. - These are two separate ventures. I have no position on whether their decision to spend 2.6 million dollars on it is smart or not; people can ultimately buy what they want, and if people fundraised 2.6 million to buy a book, and the decision makers therefore had the authority to spend as much, I see no problem.

raesene9 5y ago
The only reason they should have spent $2.6m at auction is, if there was another bidder taking them that high. Short of someone literally bidding against them with the foreknowledge of their maximum bid, it seems very unlikely that anyone else would have gone close to that number from the $35k expected price. A more sane approach if they realised that someone was bidding the up would be to duck out of that auction and by any of the other copies of the book that exist, likely for faaar less than $2.6m
- Cederfjard 5y ago
  Due to the nature of the DAO, their maximum bid was known beforehand, and I don’t know if there was a mechanism to bail out at that point, and with short notice. Edit: Except the person/people tasked with doing the actual bidding making an executive decision to, but would that have been within their mandate?
Cederfjard 5y ago
But why buy the book, for any amount? It was already available scanned to everyone for free online. The purchase literally didn’t further any of their stated goals, unless they thought it would give them rights to the IP.
- miracle2k 5y ago
  It seems clear that the purchase of the book was a purpose in and of itself.
  - Cederfjard 5y ago
    Why would people come together to do that? Owning a copy of the book gives them no rights or possibilities to do anything they couldn’t before, except keeping it at someone’s house or do viewings of it in meatspace. Is the latter the idea?

raesene9 5y ago

The only reason they should have spent $2.6m at auction is, if there was another bidder taking them that high. Short of someone literally bidding against them with the foreknowledge of their maximum bid, it seems very unlikely that anyone else would have gone close to that number from the $35k expected price. A more sane approach if they realised that someone was bidding the up would be to duck out of that auction and by any of the other copies of the book that exist, likely for faaar less than $2.6m

Cederfjard 5y ago
Due to the nature of the DAO, their maximum bid was known beforehand, and I don’t know if there was a mechanism to bail out at that point, and with short notice. Edit: Except the person/people tasked with doing the actual bidding making an executive decision to, but would that have been within their mandate?

Cederfjard 5y ago

But why buy the book, for any amount? It was already available scanned to everyone for free online. The purchase literally didn’t further any of their stated goals, unless they thought it would give them rights to the IP.

miracle2k 5y ago
It seems clear that the purchase of the book was a purpose in and of itself.
- Cederfjard 5y ago
  Why would people come together to do that? Owning a copy of the book gives them no rights or possibilities to do anything they couldn’t before, except keeping it at someone’s house or do viewings of it in meatspace. Is the latter the idea?