Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

61–70 of 270 posts

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

#61

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 a…

The real market would be owning early works by an unknown, who later becomes known.

That will evolve into the patron system again, where the owner of early works becomes a hype machine to drum up their artists clout, and then offloads their early work.

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

#62

I would describe myself, usually, as not a jealous man. I don't recollect the last time I've felt jealousy. But, something about NFTs provokes anger within me. Maybe that anger is jealously. It feels like NFTs are a mockery of the "market" for lack of a better word. When I think of what I would need to sell (items or time doing labor) to get these amounts and how incredibly useless NFTs actually are... It's frustrati…

Technology like NFTs being promoted in the way that they have been impacts the rest of the market. Not only do they manipulate relative values of legitimate applications of technology, they make people distrust the entire tech sector once the hype cycle dies down.

Look at blockchain today versus 4-5 years ago. There might actually be some legitimate uses for the technology, but that market has been soiled by the scammers and their ICOs.

At least that's where my frustration comes from.

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

#63
post #51
post #9

I don't have any problems with people buying or selling art for large sums of money, nor do I have a problem with people classifying art as pretty much whatever they want. The only thing I mind are the people pretending a real problem has been solved with NFTs. In any current (or conceived as far as I know) implementation of NFTs you have to trust so many people, technologies, and companies that the blockchain being…

At the end of the day doesnt the trust still fall back to the author? If you are getting 1/1 of a digital autograph or something, you are trusting the author to later not make more autographs. Even if the institutions that authenticate the autographs go away, their record of the work they did so far is printed into the permanent record, no?

Or really trusting anyone who downloaded it and reposted it, etc. This is not about scarcity but about a certificate of authenticity that you can show around. The actual good is worthless, the certificate is what is hard to forge.

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

#64
I think the purpose of NFTs doesn’t make sense today but maybe the future of the internet are browser implementations by Google and Apple that check ownership of assets embedded in HTML and fail to display them until you pay a royalty fee?

I guess Firefox and Chromium wouldn’t need to go along unless someone lobbied Congress to change the laws.

I don’t know how similar this would be to DRM, which seems to have failed to stop piracy.

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

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Past performance is no guarantee of future results

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

#66

I would describe myself, usually, as not a jealous man. I don't recollect the last time I've felt jealousy. But, something about NFTs provokes anger within me. Maybe that anger is jealously. It feels like NFTs are a mockery of the "market" for lack of a better word. When I think of what I would need to sell (items or time doing labor) to get these amounts and how incredibly useless NFTs actually are... It's frustrati…

Right - seeing so much money thrown around with so little backing/reason/substance doesn't really motivate you to go back to your life and put in a full workweek in exchange for whatever your salary is.

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

#67

I would describe myself, usually, as not a jealous man. I don't recollect the last time I've felt jealousy. But, something about NFTs provokes anger within me. Maybe that anger is jealously. It feels like NFTs are a mockery of the "market" for lack of a better word. When I think of what I would need to sell (items or time doing labor) to get these amounts and how incredibly useless NFTs actually are... It's frustrati…

I am more bewildered as I try to figure out where the value is coming from. An NFT as far as I can tell is just saying 'yes I own this thing'. But the original creator still owns everything really relevant about that thing anyway. What are they buying? Are there any relevant resources out there that lay out where the value is derived?

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

#68

I've never seen this video before, and I've been on the Internet since the mid-90s. It doesn't make sense to take down the video though, because it's the views that make it more valuable.

Me too. Yet now I am supposed to know. It is the same with the collage by Beeple. Never. Heard. Of. Him.

I suspect there is more to come, art that you have never heard of by an artist you are supposed to have heard of, now with NFT shiny and journalists that think they know the story.

This would not happen if linear broadcasters from yesteryear and their dead tree brethren didn't suck up the press releases to give them the oxygen of publicity.

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

#70

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…

This is covered in the article.
Post reply on HN