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

Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 245 posts

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#31

Post by speedyapoc »

peytn wrote: post #23
speedyapoc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've struggled wrapping my ahead around whether this line of thinking has merit or not. I'd argue that everything you listed can be reproduced, almost identically. But there's no value in doing so since it is not the original or was never authorized by the creator. Why does this change all of a sudden once we go digital? Is it because it's so much easier to reproduce something that originates digitally?

It’s not just “going digital”—the creative act isn’t there. It’s just financialization. The act of taking an artwork to an auction house isn’t something that’ll hold value.

I agree, but I think that's just a short term effect of people trying to cash in on the hype.

Suppose I'm an artist that releases a limited digital run of an album and that NFTs are used to attribute ownership of the digital release. Would this have more, equal, or less value than an artist doing the same thing but with a physical limited run album release?

The actual music content can be pirated and made available just the same, whether or not it was physical or digital. The cost of the physical goods themselves is negligible. However, I feel like many people argue that the digital release via NFTs would be worth less because all you have to show for your ownership is a digital token, and not some sort of limited release physical item.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#32

Post by johnwheeler »

rayiner wrote: post #28

The quote from Nilay Patel's Vox article hits on one of my pet peeves. > Nilay Patel wrote in Vox: > "Taylor makes a nice little argument in favor of paying for music. 'Music is art,' she says, 'and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for.' > This is an impressively-constructed syllogism. It is also deeply, deeply wrong.... On the internet, there’s no scarcit…

I thought the exact same thing. I think Taylor’s real error was in saying anything at all. When someone rich and famous (or even just famous) makes a case for making money, no matter how sound, they open themselves up for attack. I’m not saying they’re wrong to do so, just that the populace isn’t inclined to understand.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#33

Post by rcoveson »

speedyapoc wrote: post #16
zabzonk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between a physical object (painting, sculpture, trading card, slice of bread) which cannot with our current technology be exactly reproduced, and a digital thing, which can be.

I've struggled wrapping my ahead around whether this line of thinking has merit or not. I'd argue that everything you listed can be reproduced, almost identically. But there's no value in doing so since it is not the original or was never authorized by the creator. Why does this change all of a sudden once we go digital? Is it because it's so much easier to reproduce something that originates digitally?

> But there's no value in doing so since it is not the original or was never authorized by the creator.

So the work has no value in and of itself? It seems to me like an unauthorized reproduction of a work of art has just as much intrinsic value as the same bits labeled "original". It evokes the same emotions and forms the same memories.

I don't think this is what you actually believe about art; you probably have your "investor" hat on. In that sense you are right, there is far less liquid value in an unauthorized reproduction than there is in an authentic original. But the actual value of the work in the eyes or ears of a beholder is the same regardless of the legal, historical, or social status of a reproduction. There are probably lots of great works in art collections that owners and viewers believe are original but are in fact illegal counterfeits. But a Rembrandt is still a Rembrandt, and Bach is still Bach, even if the source is The.Well.Tempered.Clavier-xxxWAREZLORDxxx-BEST.QUALITY.torrent.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#34

Post by bigtones »

eric_b wrote: post #3

Sort of tangential to the main point but - I find the new version of Fearless to be utterly lacking in "soul", "energy", "magic" or whatever you want to call it. The unquantifiable things that made the original so good are missing. Sure, the remakes are competent and perhaps even better technically, but after listening to both side by side (song by song, new then old) - to me there is no comparison. I went online loo…

I agree - they're definitely different from the Big Machine versions and no where near as lively or enjoyable (and I'm a Taylor fan). Seems like they were all recorded in one day one after the other just to pump them out.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#35

Post by tshaddox »

apples_oranges wrote: post #6
seibelj wrote: post #2

This is 100% correct. For those that can’t understand the value of NFTs, it’s the same reason a “squares and circles” modern art piece can be worth millions - it’s the story of who made it, the collective belief, the rarity... Ultimately it has value because people agree it has value. It’s the same reason the Tom Brady football rookie card sold for millions despite it being nothing more than ink on flimsy cardboard.…

However that ink on flimsy cardboard is still somewhat unique. The NFT only associates a wallet address with a hash of whatever digital document. It's similar, but not quite. It has value in human imagination, sure, one can convince oneself that's the case. But the token is merely a hash of something that can be obtained very easily in full original quality on the Internet. The flimsy cardboard is not. At least not i…

I think we might disagree on the extent to which the collectible sports card is valuable because of its unique physical materials, and the extent to which it’s valuable because of “human imagination.”

I think the latter is responsible for the overwhelming share of the value of a sports card, and the former is only a historical coincidence that creating rare and difficult to counterfeit items was only practical by fabricating physical items.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#36

Post by paul7986 »

johnwheeler wrote: post #32
rayiner wrote: post #28

The quote from Nilay Patel's Vox article hits on one of my pet peeves. > Nilay Patel wrote in Vox: > "Taylor makes a nice little argument in favor of paying for music. 'Music is art,' she says, 'and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for.' > This is an impressively-constructed syllogism. It is also deeply, deeply wrong.... On the internet, there’s no scarcit…

I thought the exact same thing. I think Taylor’s real error was in saying anything at all. When someone rich and famous (or even just famous) makes a case for making money, no matter how sound, they open themselves up for attack. I’m not saying they’re wrong to do so, just that the populace isn’t inclined to understand.

So some people believed in her and gave her a chance... backed her with their money ..invested in her and she re-pays them by attacking them and their investment.

I used to be a fan of her and her persona but now comes off as spoiled and unappreciative!

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#37

Post by christiansakai »

seibelj wrote: post #2

This is 100% correct. For those that can’t understand the value of NFTs, it’s the same reason a “squares and circles” modern art piece can be worth millions - it’s the story of who made it, the collective belief, the rarity... Ultimately it has value because people agree it has value. It’s the same reason the Tom Brady football rookie card sold for millions despite it being nothing more than ink on flimsy cardboard.…

Only when the actual piece of digital art imprinted itself on the blockchain and can be viewed with any non-closed source viewer for free, then yes. Until that happens, NFT is useless apart from supply chain/authorship identification

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#38

Post by tshaddox »

the_local_host wrote: post #21
darkerside wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many modern art pieces could really be recreated. What's the difference you are trying to draw?

Digital art can be recreated easily, which is probably one reason why few people have been paying money for it. Physical art, which people have historically paid for, is much more difficult to credibly reproduce than NFTs. Edited to add: Moreover if the argument in favor of NFTs is that they're not worse than what preceded them, then what's the point of introducing them? If the same problems in the traditional art ma…

You can create copies of digital art easily, of course. But you can’t create a copy of a particular NFT (assuming the blockchain software works as intended).

For most of these famous digital art NFTs, the digital work itself is widely distributed online. But of course there’s only one of each NFT.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#39

Post by LegitShady »

seibelj wrote: post #2

This is 100% correct. For those that can’t understand the value of NFTs, it’s the same reason a “squares and circles” modern art piece can be worth millions - it’s the story of who made it, the collective belief, the rarity... Ultimately it has value because people agree it has value. It’s the same reason the Tom Brady football rookie card sold for millions despite it being nothing more than ink on flimsy cardboard.…

I call this the MLM approach. The more people you can scam, the more you use the size of your scam to pretend you're legitimate, while being a scam.

"Look how many people paid money for this/look how much money was paid for this, it must be worth that money! The actual efficacy of any product sold is secondary to the amount of money I've been paid"

I understand the 'tom brady rookie card' argument but it falls apart in the digital world. A digital image of Tom Brady as a rookie is worth nothing. A print of that digital image is worth less than cost of printing it. The value of the card is that its official merchandise of limited run with no way to create 'new' old cards.

Stop pretending NFTs are physical items, stop pretending they can't be infinitely reproduced.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#40

Post by soperj »

IneffablePigeon wrote: post #10
eric_b wrote: post #3

Sort of tangential to the main point but - I find the new version of Fearless to be utterly lacking in "soul", "energy", "magic" or whatever you want to call it. The unquantifiable things that made the original so good are missing. Sure, the remakes are competent and perhaps even better technically, but after listening to both side by side (song by song, new then old) - to me there is no comparison. I went online loo…

I think it's possibly a bit rich to say that they didn't listen to it just because they had a different opinion. I found the same thing on first listen, because a few things were subtly "wrong" (different). On second or third listen I love the new version, the production and vocals are just that little bit more polished in a fair few ways and I've gotten used to the slightly different mix. The new bonus tracks are pr…

I've had the same thing happen with live versions. The Pixies play "Where is my mind" very differently live, the vocal lines especially. First time I heard it was jarring because of the expectation and I didn't think it was good as the recorded version. Recorded version feels much worse now.
Post reply on HN