5 ms·

In Getting Work by Ella Frost, We Ate Our Own Dog Food

85 points by trentmc 11y ago

iliketosleep 11y ago
To me, this kind of usage of blockchain technology shows its true potential. I'm not sure about the future of actual cryptocurrencies per se, but the underlying concept of a distributed public ledger of "transactions" is unstoppable. I think we're going to see countless use cases of blockchain-like tech beyond cryptocurrency, and this kind of thing is just the beginning.
dshankar 11y ago
Very interesting use case. Do you plan to add escrow functionality?
abcd_f 11y ago
I understand what this does (basically, decentralized verification of the ownership), but I'm not sure what is the real-world compelling reason for using it. I mean this solves an issue of verifying the legitimacy of the ownership, correct? For the initial (creator -> 1st customer) transfers, the only party interested in this is the original creator, but I don't see how this is better than keeping a simple list of transfers in whatever form the creator wants. I guess the customer may also find it useful for audit purposes or something, but again, this doesn't seem that much more useful than a conventional papertrail. Secondly, it looks like this can be used to enable the resale of the rights. But then it means that you have a situation with a party that is willing to pay for the work, but this money is guaranteed NOT to go to the creator. So it's not in creator's best interest to have their work "ascribed". Unless I am missing something, what's the reason for a creator to participate in this?
- imron 11y ago
  > But then it means that you have a situation with a party that is willing to pay for the work, but this money is guaranteed NOT to go to the creator. So you mean exactly like normal things e.g. If a buy and then sell a car, the car manufacturer doesn't get any of that resale either.
  - Nullabillity 11y ago
    Yeah, but with a car you have exactly one car, so ownership makes sense. That doesn't apply to digital works, yet both copyright law (and now this) try to make it behave as such. Is that really the direction we should be going?
    - eternauta3k 11y ago
      Yes, ability to resell adds value.
      - Nullabillity 11y ago
        Adds value to that property, sure. But at the same time you also take away much more value from society at large.
  - abcd_f 11y ago
    No, I don't mean that, obviously enough.
- atmosx 11y ago
  Say Gottfried and Isaac are disputing over the creation of a mathematical method to solve problems. Now if Isaac writes a cryptic paper that non one understands (but Gottfried) and doesn't publish these finds on a 'well known Journal' it's very hard for him to take credit for his work. If however, if publish his paper in the blockchain, then there is a proof that he actually FOUND at THAT point in time what he claims to. The good thing is that, it's there for all to see and cannot be tampered. That's all Isaac will need in court to win his case over Gottfried.
  - amelius 11y ago
    So I guess we could also use this to build a collection of prior-art, which cannot be ignored by the patent office (?) Have an idea, just throw it into the block chain. And you can still patent it later on (if nobody beats you to it, in which case they cannot either unless you come to an agreement), because the idea has not been formally published yet. I just hope it is all formally (legally) correct.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Be careful deciding that storing information in the blockchain would not be considered publication. See II here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html An electronic publication, including an on-line database or Internet publication, is considered to be a “printed publication”... You are also basically trying to have your cake (establish prior art by public disclosure) and eat it too (maintain your ability to file for a patent). I think hash proofs don't end up establishing prior art, because they don't make the idea available (Which seems to be a key aspect of the prior art test).
      - URSpider94 11y ago
        You're probably correct that this isn't enough to establish prior art unless you actually publish the material as well. However, it could be a good way to document a trade secret. Even if another entity is granted a patent, you can continue to practice a trade secret internally if you can prove that you were using it before the patent was filed.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pjbrunet 11y ago
  I think the intended application is for digital art, which is where I think this shines. If you're a photographer, for example, printing X originals and destroying the negative is already dead simple. In the past, I think paying for digital work was more about resolution. Here's a preview, now pay me for the full resolution. But I think if there's some consensus among collectors, maybe this will work. What you're saying about future transactions benefiting the creator, that might be interesting to explore. I thought I heard some galleries have terms that limit who you can sell the art to in the future. Returning some percentage of future transactions back to the artist (or gallery) would be cool, but that could always be added as a feature later, right? As far as keeping a list, I was never able to do that. I have paintings all over the US and 99% of them I have no idea where they are and who owns them. I lose touch with people. And often the transactions are with complete strangers, do you really want to keep in touch with all these random people? Even if I have somebody's email, I don't want to bug them about my artwork. I gave a couple of paintings to my university and I never had access to the room they were displayed, they could be in a landfill by now, no idea.
terhechte 11y ago
Interesting, I like the idea. I'd find it tedious, though, to manually upload a file in a browser each time I have something digital I'd like to register. Do you happen to have an API? Or are you planning to build one?
- bpon 11y ago
  Yes, the API is ready and will soon be available at https://github.com/ascribe0 https://github.com/ascribe0
nissimk 11y ago
Coupon payments for bonds, dividend patients for stocks. Disintermediation of banking entities currently tracking holdings. This has a lot of potential.
Maken 11y ago
So, this is basically a online copyright office?
e28eta 11y ago
What prevents a malicious actor from scraping the Flickr new photos feed (for example) of someone else, and registering & selling that other person's copyrighted work? Or a malicious actor posting their own photo to Flickr, then registering it on ascribe, selling it through ascribe, and then repudiating the transaction, claiming they weren't the ascribe user? Unless ascribe.io is the first place something is ever published, or they have some way to verify initial ownership (not just possession), I don't see how this works.

85 points by trentmc 11y ago

To me, this kind of usage of blockchain technology shows its true potential. I'm not sure about the future of actual cryptocurrencies per se, but the underlying concept of a distributed public ledger of "transactions" is unstoppable. I think we're going to see countless use cases of blockchain-like tech beyond cryptocurrency, and this kind of thing is just the beginning.

dshankar 11y ago

Very interesting use case. Do you plan to add escrow functionality?

abcd_f 11y ago

I understand what this does (basically, decentralized verification of the ownership), but I'm not sure what is the real-world compelling reason for using it. I mean this solves an issue of verifying the legitimacy of the ownership, correct? For the initial (creator -> 1st customer) transfers, the only party interested in this is the original creator, but I don't see how this is better than keeping a simple list of transfers in whatever form the creator wants. I guess the customer may also find it useful for audit purposes or something, but again, this doesn't seem that much more useful than a conventional papertrail. Secondly, it looks like this can be used to enable the resale of the rights. But then it means that you have a situation with a party that is willing to pay for the work, but this money is guaranteed NOT to go to the creator. So it's not in creator's best interest to have their work "ascribed". Unless I am missing something, what's the reason for a creator to participate in this?

imron 11y ago
> But then it means that you have a situation with a party that is willing to pay for the work, but this money is guaranteed NOT to go to the creator. So you mean exactly like normal things e.g. If a buy and then sell a car, the car manufacturer doesn't get any of that resale either.
- Nullabillity 11y ago
  Yeah, but with a car you have exactly one car, so ownership makes sense. That doesn't apply to digital works, yet both copyright law (and now this) try to make it behave as such. Is that really the direction we should be going?
  - eternauta3k 11y ago
    Yes, ability to resell adds value.
    - Nullabillity 11y ago
      Adds value to that property, sure. But at the same time you also take away much more value from society at large.
- abcd_f 11y ago
  No, I don't mean that, obviously enough.
atmosx 11y ago
Say Gottfried and Isaac are disputing over the creation of a mathematical method to solve problems. Now if Isaac writes a cryptic paper that non one understands (but Gottfried) and doesn't publish these finds on a 'well known Journal' it's very hard for him to take credit for his work. If however, if publish his paper in the blockchain, then there is a proof that he actually FOUND at THAT point in time what he claims to. The good thing is that, it's there for all to see and cannot be tampered. That's all Isaac will need in court to win his case over Gottfried.
- amelius 11y ago
  So I guess we could also use this to build a collection of prior-art, which cannot be ignored by the patent office (?) Have an idea, just throw it into the block chain. And you can still patent it later on (if nobody beats you to it, in which case they cannot either unless you come to an agreement), because the idea has not been formally published yet. I just hope it is all formally (legally) correct.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Be careful deciding that storing information in the blockchain would not be considered publication. See II here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html An electronic publication, including an on-line database or Internet publication, is considered to be a “printed publication”... You are also basically trying to have your cake (establish prior art by public disclosure) and eat it too (maintain your ability to file for a patent). I think hash proofs don't end up establishing prior art, because they don't make the idea available (Which seems to be a key aspect of the prior art test).
    - URSpider94 11y ago
      You're probably correct that this isn't enough to establish prior art unless you actually publish the material as well. However, it could be a good way to document a trade secret. Even if another entity is granted a patent, you can continue to practice a trade secret internally if you can prove that you were using it before the patent was filed.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pjbrunet 11y ago
I think the intended application is for digital art, which is where I think this shines. If you're a photographer, for example, printing X originals and destroying the negative is already dead simple. In the past, I think paying for digital work was more about resolution. Here's a preview, now pay me for the full resolution. But I think if there's some consensus among collectors, maybe this will work. What you're saying about future transactions benefiting the creator, that might be interesting to explore. I thought I heard some galleries have terms that limit who you can sell the art to in the future. Returning some percentage of future transactions back to the artist (or gallery) would be cool, but that could always be added as a feature later, right? As far as keeping a list, I was never able to do that. I have paintings all over the US and 99% of them I have no idea where they are and who owns them. I lose touch with people. And often the transactions are with complete strangers, do you really want to keep in touch with all these random people? Even if I have somebody's email, I don't want to bug them about my artwork. I gave a couple of paintings to my university and I never had access to the room they were displayed, they could be in a landfill by now, no idea.

terhechte 11y ago

Interesting, I like the idea. I'd find it tedious, though, to manually upload a file in a browser each time I have something digital I'd like to register. Do you happen to have an API? Or are you planning to build one?

bpon 11y ago
Yes, the API is ready and will soon be available at https://github.com/ascribe0 https://github.com/ascribe0

nissimk 11y ago

Coupon payments for bonds, dividend patients for stocks. Disintermediation of banking entities currently tracking holdings. This has a lot of potential.

Maken 11y ago

So, this is basically a online copyright office?

e28eta 11y ago

What prevents a malicious actor from scraping the Flickr new photos feed (for example) of someone else, and registering & selling that other person's copyrighted work? Or a malicious actor posting their own photo to Flickr, then registering it on ascribe, selling it through ascribe, and then repudiating the transaction, claiming they weren't the ascribe user? Unless ascribe.io is the first place something is ever published, or they have some way to verify initial ownership (not just possession), I don't see how this works.