3 ms·

I still don’t get NFTs, they try to create a fake sense of scarcity for digital files that anyone can access. you “own” an NFT which contains the url of a publ

by _yb2s 3y ago

I still don’t get NFTs, they try to create a fake sense of scarcity for digital files that anyone can access. you “own” an NFT which contains the url of a publicly accessible ape image in the same sense that you can “own” Google by bookmarking it in a web browser

bell-cot 3y ago
I think of it more like "owning" a famous painting...which some major art museum has rights to keep on display for the next 999 years, and to sell images of in their gift shop, and to loan to other museums, etc. Outside of bragging rights with your snobby friends, you don't really "own" anything.
jfengel 3y ago
The germ of not-stupid was that artists wanted a way to be able to prove their ownership of art. If somebody was using their art they could point to the NFT (which can contain a hash of the artwork) and say, "I own this and I can prove it." It's still up to courts to enforce it, but at least you had genuine proof. And it meant that when they sold the art, they could transfer the NFT, and now you truly own the art -- in a legal sense. That's good for the artist, when the buyer has more confidence that the transaction is binding. The artists were kinda excited for the automated contracts. They wanted to be able to sell a piece and retain a right to a share of future sales. That way if the $10 commission piece blew up like Banksy and sold for $5 million, they could automatically get a piece when the NFT sold. (In Ethereum rather than cash.) That all evaporated really quickly. Partly because of the scams, but also because NFTs aren't free. If you get a $10 commission and you have to pay $10 to make the NFT, you're not making any money. Maybe that wouldn't apply if it were done with a proof-of-stake rather than proof-of-work blockchain, but the entire thing became ridiculous before anybody could begin to work out the actual technical kinks. Plus, the idea of using the courts to enforce your copyright is a waste of time and money. Maybe some day you'd find that some corporation had grabbed your work and used it as a stock photo, but even with crypto-grade proof, it's an uphill battle. Again, it became ridiculous long before an actual enforcement opportunity presented itself. So... the idea wasn't initially completely stupid, just unrealistic. And then completely stupid.
- _yb2s 3y ago
  Thanks for that, this makes total sense as a cryptographically provable record of prior art, which would be very useful for any digital media or inventions that have no physical record of their creation. It does not make sense to me that the NFT itself would be worth any money, or need to be transferred. If the artist can prove they did the work, they can still sell or license that work in the traditional way, with a contract or license. Since the law doesn't really recognize NFTs, you still would need the license anyways.

by _yb2s 3y ago

bell-cot 3y ago

I think of it more like "owning" a famous painting...which some major art museum has rights to keep on display for the next 999 years, and to sell images of in their gift shop, and to loan to other museums, etc. Outside of bragging rights with your snobby friends, you don't really "own" anything.

jfengel 3y ago

The germ of not-stupid was that artists wanted a way to be able to prove their ownership of art. If somebody was using their art they could point to the NFT (which can contain a hash of the artwork) and say, "I own this and I can prove it." It's still up to courts to enforce it, but at least you had genuine proof. And it meant that when they sold the art, they could transfer the NFT, and now you truly own the art -- in a legal sense. That's good for the artist, when the buyer has more confidence that the transaction is binding. The artists were kinda excited for the automated contracts. They wanted to be able to sell a piece and retain a right to a share of future sales. That way if the $10 commission piece blew up like Banksy and sold for $5 million, they could automatically get a piece when the NFT sold. (In Ethereum rather than cash.) That all evaporated really quickly. Partly because of the scams, but also because NFTs aren't free. If you get a $10 commission and you have to pay $10 to make the NFT, you're not making any money. Maybe that wouldn't apply if it were done with a proof-of-stake rather than proof-of-work blockchain, but the entire thing became ridiculous before anybody could begin to work out the actual technical kinks. Plus, the idea of using the courts to enforce your copyright is a waste of time and money. Maybe some day you'd find that some corporation had grabbed your work and used it as a stock photo, but even with crypto-grade proof, it's an uphill battle. Again, it became ridiculous long before an actual enforcement opportunity presented itself. So... the idea wasn't initially completely stupid, just unrealistic. And then completely stupid.

_yb2s 3y ago
Thanks for that, this makes total sense as a cryptographically provable record of prior art, which would be very useful for any digital media or inventions that have no physical record of their creation. It does not make sense to me that the NFT itself would be worth any money, or need to be transferred. If the artist can prove they did the work, they can still sell or license that work in the traditional way, with a contract or license. Since the law doesn't really recognize NFTs, you still would need the license anyways.