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

81–90 of 270 posts

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

#81

Post by delecti »

hoppyhoppy2 wrote: post #72
delecti wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An NFT is essentially a trading card for the thing that it's attached to. Just like you don't "own" Babe Ruth in any meaningful sense by owning a Babe Ruth trading card, you don't "own" the artwork associated with an NFT by owning the NFT itself. The exception is if there's some arrangement external to the NFT that links ownership of the NFT to ownership of the thing.

Could I sell an NFT for my birth certificate to raise some cash, while my original birth certificate remains at the state's Vital Records Department under ownership of the state? If so, what exactly would the buyer be buying? Just a virtual trading card and a promise that I won't sell my "birth-certificate NFT" trading card to anyone else?

> Could I sell an NFT for my birth certificate to raise some cash, while my original birth certificate remains at the state's Vital Records Department under ownership of the state?

Yes, and it's basically equivalent to writing the words "My Birth Certificate" on a piece of paper and selling that piece of paper. It holds no weight whatsoever.

> If so, what exactly would the buyer be buying?

Nothing.

> Just a promise that I won't sell my "birth-certificate NFT" to anyone else?

Not even that, unless you also did that. You can make multiple NFTs from the same thing. Just like nothing would prevent you from writing "My Birth Certificate" on a second piece of paper and selling that too, unless there was some external agreement that you wouldn't.

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

#82

Post by Tabular-Iceberg »

vaer-k wrote: post #57
Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be fraudulent, but that's not what I'm suggesting. I suppose I could sell a token for Hacker News, I just couldn't claim that the holder of the token gets any kind of special privilege here.

In that case sure, you could do it, just as you could sell someone a deed to a rock you picked up off the street.

It's even less than that. A deed contains some language to the effect of "the holder of this deed owns the house at such-and-such address", whereas most of these NFTs seem to stop at "the house at such-and-such address".

Is there a way to see the actual language of these NFTs that receive press attention? Do any of them actually claim anything one way or the other?

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

#83

Post by Hamuko »

Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #33
vaer-k wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That would be fraudulent, but that's not what I'm suggesting. I suppose I could sell a token for Hacker News, I just couldn't claim that the holder of the token gets any kind of special privilege here.

>I just couldn't claim that the holder of the token gets any kind of special privilege here.

Sounds like an NFT alright.

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

#84

Post by monkeynotes »

EEor wrote: post #22
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.

How do we define "original" when talking about digital works? As soon as you upload it you are making a copy. Then that copy gets bounced around and duplicated across edge servers all over the world.

You'd have to own the SD card to own the 'original'. But who really cares? I don't understand NFTs, I just don't understand the value.

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

#85

Post by sgron »

hoppyhoppy2 wrote: post #23

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 N…

Also, from the terms https://www.charliebitme.com/#/auction-terms>, the buyer doesn't own the media itself, just the NFT...

> “DCF” means the Davies-Carr Family.

> You acknowledge and agree that the DCF (or, as applicable, its licensors) retains ownership of all legal right, title and interest in and to the Media and all intellectual property rights therein. The rights that you have in and to the NFT are as described in this License. The DCF reserves all rights in and to the Media not expressly granted to you in this License.

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

#86

Post by pionar »

hoppyhoppy2 wrote: post #72
delecti wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An NFT is essentially a trading card for the thing that it's attached to. Just like you don't "own" Babe Ruth in any meaningful sense by owning a Babe Ruth trading card, you don't "own" the artwork associated with an NFT by owning the NFT itself. The exception is if there's some arrangement external to the NFT that links ownership of the NFT to ownership of the thing.

Could I sell an NFT for my birth certificate to raise some cash, while my original birth certificate remains at the state's Vital Records Department under ownership of the state? If so, what exactly would the buyer be buying? Just a virtual trading card and a promise that I won't sell my "birth-certificate NFT" trading card to anyone else?

A) yes B) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

#87

Post by pionar »

legitster wrote: post #69

So, most NFTs are on the Ethereum network, correct? What's stopping people from just... making a new crypto NFT network? What if Doge NFTs take off - could everything be sold a second time?

Unless there's some other legal agreement, there's nothing stopping you from selling an NFT on the same network multiple times.

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

#88

Post by andrewnicolalde »

legitster wrote: post #69

So, most NFTs are on the Ethereum network, correct? What's stopping people from just... making a new crypto NFT network? What if Doge NFTs take off - could everything be sold a second time?

Nothing, yes.

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

#89

Post by octocop »

librish wrote: 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…

Think of it like perfect ownership instead of it being trustless. Providing proof of ownership is what makes the blockchain tick, in my opinion.

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

#90

Post by dntrkv »

librish wrote: 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…

If you are someone that believes in blockchain being something as revolutionary as the internet, you might see oracles as a temporary solution. Currently, we need a bridge between the blockchain and the rest of the world since there is no other way to link information between the two.

But if you believe in this potential blockchain-everything future, all of this information will be on the blockchain as the single source of truth. At that point, oracles will not be needed and the information will be stored directly on the chain.

Post reply on HN