Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#61

Post by setpatchaddress »

playingchanges wrote: post #57
eloff wrote: post #7

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…

I think the idea is that a lot of these come with publishing contracts built in so the artist receives a royalty if the token changes hands and the current owner has the rights to license the art. For example if I sell you a song as an nft you could then license the song to Budweiser to use in a commercial and we both get paid. Think about how difficult this would be to arrange without the nft to handle the contract.

Song publishing seems like a bad example here — it’s insanely easy to make that arrangement in practice because there is an existing real world payment / licensing structure for exactly that transaction.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#62

Post by Theodores »

scambier wrote: post #9
eloff wrote: post #7

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…

> Do people really care who pretends to own it They absolutely don't. There's no art collectors or amateurs in this game, only speculators.

Christie's commissioned the Beeple work to sell as an NFT. Why would an auction house do that?

There is more to it than speculation. There is a con where something went on. Maybe the auction house commissioned the money to pay for it and had a 69.3 million fee.

It saddens me that journalists have chosen not to follow the money and ask the questions.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#63

Post by jancsika »

prepend wrote: post #49
eloff wrote: post #7

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…

It’s the natural extension of luxury branding where just having LV would raise the price from $100 to $1,000. So may as well strip away all vestiges of reality and just allow the bullshit signaling part to be sold by itself. Perhaps with people focusing on that, we can get more quality products IRL. I went to an eye exam where the optometrist was wearing arcteryx gear during my exam. Perhaps she was going to jet off…

> optometrist was wearing arcteryx gear during my exam

Arcteryx pieces feel great on, the same way avocados taste great in your mouth. And just like you'd likely be misleading people by using an avocado as an example of the average fruit, you are misleading people by using Arcteryx to stand in for technical outdoorwear.

Hell, that holds even if your optometrist was wearing a fucking rain shell in the office. Compare:

1. jacket made of mostly straight, rectangular pieces of material sewn together, then taped at the seams (which can rub against your skin) in order to make it waterproof, probably with long arms so it doesn't ride up when you raise yours (e.g., you end up with wrinkly, noisy sleeves)

2. jacket with fused seams, made of pieces that are fabricated to fit together and follow the contour of the human body, with thicker material fused only in those areas that were measured to be high abrasion

Number 2 is obviously the wrong garment to wear inside a climate controlled building. But it feels so much better than your run-of-the-mill slicker that I could see someone in and out of a building deciding to simply leave it on for a bit.

In other words, the technical specs responsible for those differences match "real quality reasons" for someone to decide to wear it for longer periods, even in conditions for which the garment wasn't designed.

And if it wasn't a rain shell, it's likely the piece was comfortable, breathable, didn't look like the average piece of outdoorwear, and was perfectly fitting for the conditions of an optometry office. (I own probably four of their Delta LT fullzips which are so light I sometimes forget to stop wearing them in the early summer.)

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#64

Post by gertlex »

geoduck14 wrote: post #51
cs702 wrote: post #18

Please consider changing the OP link to Cleese's actual post on Twitter, which embeds a video of him describing this "work of art": https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1372944852325789704 It's brilliant parody, as usual, from Cleese. Regardless of what you think of NFTs, you will get a good laugh.

I don't have a Twitter account. Is there another way to see the video?

I got "This is not available to you" or something like that, which I've never seen before. A few refreshes later (I also don't have a twitter) it worked though.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#65

Post by sneak »

playingchanges wrote: post #57
eloff wrote: post #7

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…

I think the idea is that a lot of these come with publishing contracts built in so the artist receives a royalty if the token changes hands and the current owner has the rights to license the art. For example if I sell you a song as an nft you could then license the song to Budweiser to use in a commercial and we both get paid. Think about how difficult this would be to arrange without the nft to handle the contract.

> I think the idea is that a lot of these come with publishing contracts built in so the artist receives a royalty if the token changes hands and the current owner has the rights to license the art.

I've not seen a single NFT that comes with an associated copyright license to the underlying work.

Additionally, the artist only receives a royalty if the token is sold on these marketplaces that enforce the royalty. There's no such thing preventing a private sale that doesn't pay it.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#66

Post by sharpneli »

eloff wrote: post #7

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…

They’re even more useless than that. They’re exactly like those webpages that sell you a certificate that you own a particular star.

It’s literally that. Someone giving you a slip of paper ”You own Mona Lisa” and nothing more. The actual piece of art is elsewhere. Copyrights are not affected etc.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#67

Post by valuearb »

meowface wrote: post #45
lukifer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accelerating inequality has led to a conundrum for the rich in addition to the obvious consequences for the poor: what do you actually do with that obscene wealth? [0] You can only consume so much luxury, and sitting on dollars results in tax liability and/or gradual depreciation. Gambling it on speculative assets and bragging-rights positional goods (whynotboth.gif) is pretty much the only game in town, especially w…

Yeah. Cryptocurrency and "Web 3.0" is absolutely not all zero-sum, and I'm overall optimistic in the long-term, but much like the existing finance industry, a high percentage is definitely zero-sum or close enough on net. People compare NFTs to trading cards. But if you already think those things are basically useless zero-sum speculative Greater Fool insert-other-overused-but-apt-buzzwords bullshit, your opinion of…

DeFi is actual DeSpec, tools for decentralized speculation on things with no intrinsic value.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#68

Post by dang »

cs702 wrote: post #18

Please consider changing the OP link to Cleese's actual post on Twitter, which embeds a video of him describing this "work of art": https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1372944852325789704 It's brilliant parody, as usual, from Cleese. Regardless of what you think of NFTs, you will get a good laugh.

Ok, changed from https://decrypt.co/62217/monty-pythons-john-cleese-mints-bro....

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#69

Post by kgwgk »

_ZeD_ wrote: post #43

it remembers me the italian classic scene of the "selling of the Trevi fountain" from "Tototruffa '62" [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlQNPg5-hgk

Not sure if you are aware that the choice of the Brooklyn Bridge is not accidental: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#70

Post by djoldman »

sneak wrote: post #65
playingchanges wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea is that a lot of these come with publishing contracts built in so the artist receives a royalty if the token changes hands and the current owner has the rights to license the art. For example if I sell you a song as an nft you could then license the song to Budweiser to use in a commercial and we both get paid. Think about how difficult this would be to arrange without the nft to handle the contract.

> I think the idea is that a lot of these come with publishing contracts built in so the artist receives a royalty if the token changes hands and the current owner has the rights to license the art. I've not seen a single NFT that comes with an associated copyright license to the underlying work. Additionally, the artist only receives a royalty if the token is sold on these marketplaces that enforce the royalty. Ther…

Isn't it possible to actually code it into the ethereum contract to send eth to a wallet when it's traded?
Post reply on HN