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

Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 270 posts

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#21

Post by coderintherye »

flowerlad wrote: post #2

NFTs may be a way for open source developers to make some money off of their work. Linus Torvalds could make a few hundred millions by selling an NFT for Linux, considering a JPG file sold for $69 million [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/arts/design/nft-auction-c...

The beeple NFT shouldn't be used as a basis for comparison to future expected values given that it was artificially inflated by self-dealing, you can read more here about it: https://amycastor.com/2021/03/14/metakovan-the-mystery-beepl...

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#22

Post by EEor »

yalogin wrote: post #18

What is preventing people from uploading the video back to YouTube? after all there are tons of shows already on there that are owned by media companies. I am sure this Charlie video has a lot of copies floating around.

There's nothing preventing it. It wouldn't be the original however, and in this scenario that's all that matters.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#23

Post by hoppyhoppy2 »

My main basic questions remain after reading about these NFT sales.

Why can't someone just buy all rights to this video the same way a company can buy the rights to a film? What does the blockchain do that a couple lawyers and some paperwork couldn't?

Why a blockchain-based digital "certificate" instead of just a certificate? Does my birth certificate or marriage certificate or college diploma need an upgrade to an NFT, too?

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#24

Post by endisneigh »

vaer-k wrote: post #20
Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #10

What would happen if I put up a NFT for sale of something I had no part in making?

What would happen if you sold to someone the deed to a house you do not own?

This is not the equivalent situation. It's more like I decide to sell an NFT to your comment.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#26

Post by phreeza »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #12

When someone bought this NFT (or in general), did someone sign a contract with you saying they transferred ownership in the intellectual property the NFT "represented"? (Ie, was at the other end of the URL, I guess?) Cause the NFT itself means nothing to courts or laws, does it? If someone owns the copyright in that video, they can send YouTube takedown notices. But what, if anything, makes NFT proof of ownership of…

I don't think it means nothing to a court,even if it isn't a formal contract. Verbal agreements also carry some weight in court in most jurisdictions, they just aren't as bulletproof. I would guess an nft is somewhere on that level?

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#27

Post by flowerlad »

recursive wrote: post #13
flowerlad wrote: post #2

NFTs may be a way for open source developers to make some money off of their work. Linus Torvalds could make a few hundred millions by selling an NFT for Linux, considering a JPG file sold for $69 million [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/arts/design/nft-auction-c...

What is an "NFT for linux"? Maybe selling a banana taped to a wall could be a way for people to make money, considering one of those sold for ${OUTRAGE}. Is Linus running out of money or something?

> What is an "NFT for linux"?

What is an NFT for a JPG file? I don't know, but we know it got sold for $69 million.

> Is Linus running out of money or something?

I have no idea, but since when does someone have to run out of money in order to want to make more?

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#28

Post by hackinthebochs »

The only explanation for NFTs that made sense to me is that people with an interest in the network (e.g. early investors) are bidding up some choice NFTs to make news and drive interest in their network. There is no actual market for NFTs at these prices, but that doesn't stop groups with deep pockets from pretending like there is by purchasing well known memes for eye popping amounts. If internet "celebrities" are able to cash in on this nonsense, I see no harm in it. It's sort of like living off of VC subsidized products.
Post reply on HN