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

TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

clubnft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 195 posts

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#11

Post by zepto »

originalcvk wrote: post #8
zepto wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), Wrong. > I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own. Yes, you contradict yourself. > Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none . Yes, which is not what you say in the parts I quoted - let’s remind ourselv…

For real estate lawyers, a full understanding of all the laws is important. For someone who might want to buy a house, a rough understanding is sufficient. That's why I provide both. Not everybody needs to know or care about the exact details in order to decide it is worth owning a house. But if they are interested, they can learn. I hope providing both sides of it is seen as useful in that light - it is not self-con…

> Just like a deed conveys ownership of a house at some address, the token conveys ownership of that media.

This is just a lie. The token doesn’t convey ownership of then media. There is no rough understanding by which this is true.

> I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none.

Which you acknowledge here.

This isn’t a matter of exact details that aren’t important to a buyer.

If you tell someone that an NFT conveys ownership of the media, you are lying to them and participating in a con.

The fact that you later contradict that statement, doesn’t change the fact that you lied.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#12

Post by GDC7 »

originalcvk wrote: post #10
GDC7 wrote: post #9

It seems to me lots of people who are buying NFTs were never that into graphic art in the first place, but they all of a sudden became graphic art aficionados because it's the only type of art that can be distributed via this NFT mechanism that they deem as socially fair because it has a generic "sticking it to the man" vibe.

Yep - a side effect of this is that NFT art has a distinct aesthetic which is different from prior digital art. I am hoping that as the space settles down, less "lazy" art and more thoughtful art can rise to the forefront again. NFTs are a useful mechanism for the digital art medium, I hope they come to be seen in that light a bit more and a bit less as valuable in and of themselves because of the mechanism.

The problem is that the mechanisms that regulate real art are clear.

Take a painting. You have to stand in front of it to truly appreciate it. A pic won't do it.

So the buyer of the painting has an exclusive asset which produces returns in terms of appreciation but also periodic fees when they lend it to museums.

NFTs have nothing of the sort because the enjoyment is essentially the same between owning it and right clicking it. In order to mimic the real world enjoyment you'd have to find a way to immerse the asset in a virtual world in which avatars pay for the privilege of seeing/using that art content.

The NFT maybe here, but the virtual world , not yet.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#13

Post by smoldesu »

originalcvk wrote: post #8
zepto wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), Wrong. > I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own. Yes, you contradict yourself. > Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none . Yes, which is not what you say in the parts I quoted - let’s remind ourselv…

For real estate lawyers, a full understanding of all the laws is important. For someone who might want to buy a house, a rough understanding is sufficient. That's why I provide both. Not everybody needs to know or care about the exact details in order to decide it is worth owning a house. But if they are interested, they can learn. I hope providing both sides of it is seen as useful in that light - it is not self-con…

Please, explain to me what legal rights an NFT-holder asserts over someone that claims ownership of your token. Do any countries respect the blockchain enough to take you seriously?

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#14

Post by meheleventyone »

GDC7 wrote: post #12
originalcvk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep - a side effect of this is that NFT art has a distinct aesthetic which is different from prior digital art. I am hoping that as the space settles down, less "lazy" art and more thoughtful art can rise to the forefront again. NFTs are a useful mechanism for the digital art medium, I hope they come to be seen in that light a bit more and a bit less as valuable in and of themselves because of the mechanism.

The problem is that the mechanisms that regulate real art are clear. Take a painting. You have to stand in front of it to truly appreciate it. A pic won't do it. So the buyer of the painting has an exclusive asset which produces returns in terms of appreciation but also periodic fees when they lend it to museums. NFTs have nothing of the sort because the enjoyment is essentially the same between owning it and right c…

Even then you can bootleg the virtual world, the real world not so much.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#15

Post by meheleventyone »

originalcvk wrote: post #8
zepto wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), Wrong. > I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own. Yes, you contradict yourself. > Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none . Yes, which is not what you say in the parts I quoted - let’s remind ourselv…

For real estate lawyers, a full understanding of all the laws is important. For someone who might want to buy a house, a rough understanding is sufficient. That's why I provide both. Not everybody needs to know or care about the exact details in order to decide it is worth owning a house. But if they are interested, they can learn. I hope providing both sides of it is seen as useful in that light - it is not self-con…

If you own a Meebit NFT it’s actually the extant legal system that determines what that means.

https://meebits.larvalabs.com/meebits/termsandconditions

And note you don’t own the media and that what owning the NFT means can change.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#16

Post by GDC7 »

meheleventyone wrote: post #14
GDC7 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the mechanisms that regulate real art are clear. Take a painting. You have to stand in front of it to truly appreciate it. A pic won't do it. So the buyer of the painting has an exclusive asset which produces returns in terms of appreciation but also periodic fees when they lend it to museums. NFTs have nothing of the sort because the enjoyment is essentially the same between owning it and right c…

Even then you can bootleg the virtual world, the real world not so much.

You technically can do it in the real world! It's called stealing the painting lol.

When buying an NFT you are essentially betting that society would come around to equate "right-clicking" with stealing.

And that would employ the same social and technological resources to prevent right-clickers to do their bidding as it does today to prevent thief from stealing paintings from museums.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#17

Post by meheleventyone »

GDC7 wrote: post #16
meheleventyone wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even then you can bootleg the virtual world, the real world not so much.

You technically can do it in the real world! It's called stealing the painting lol. When buying an NFT you are essentially betting that society would come around to equate "right-clicking" with stealing. And that would employ the same social and technological resources to prevent right-clickers to do their bidding as it does today to prevent thief from stealing paintings from museums.

I mean technically speaking IP laws mean that the image is protected and improper use of it can be challenged. It’s just the ownership on the blockchain doesn’t confer that usually.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#18

Post by originalcvk »

zepto wrote: post #4
originalcvk wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of land. Subject, of course, to caveats and rules and fine print about what "ownership" of the land really means. The government can sieze it, for example. It's called a deed. Similarly, this community has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and r…

> Similarly, this community has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of a piece of art. Except that they simply haven’t. Try taking someone’s house from them. You’ll find that it’s not just semantics that defines ownership. Try copying the artwork pointed to by an NFT. You’ll find the NFT doesn’t stop you. > If at this point you are tryin…

I make it clear what that "ownership" means - the right to control that token on the blockchain. I make it clear that it is not enforced by any legal framework, just the blockchain. What is your issue?

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#19

Post by gfodor »

zepto wrote: post #2

> The value of an NFT is in having the right to insert yourself into that story, as the owner of that work, and with the ability to transfer that right to another person (i.e. selling the work). This is a false statement. The NFT doesn’t make you the owner of ‘the work’. It makes you the owner of the NFT. > The same way purchasing a painting gives you the right to resell that painting and prove to others that you are…

You’re presuming ownership universally means copyright. It doesn’t. Ownership is as much a cultural norm as a legal one. Owning the NFT, in certain circles, allows you to participate in an alternative cultural norm of ownership, decoupled from copyright ownership.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#20

Post by GDC7 »

meheleventyone wrote: post #17
GDC7 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You technically can do it in the real world! It's called stealing the painting lol. When buying an NFT you are essentially betting that society would come around to equate "right-clicking" with stealing. And that would employ the same social and technological resources to prevent right-clickers to do their bidding as it does today to prevent thief from stealing paintings from museums.

I mean technically speaking IP laws mean that the image is protected and improper use of it can be challenged. It’s just the ownership on the blockchain doesn’t confer that usually.

> I mean technically speaking IP laws mean that the image is protected and improper use of it can be challenged

Let's be real. AP, AFP, Reuters and Getty try to protect their images by charging for the full resolution pics .

People will gladly use the 580x830 instead of the pricy 5800x8300.

Brands which have been fighting this fight since the 90s such as Ray-Ban, LVMH, Gucci...they all fail to block counterfit physical products from being shipped from China.

What chances does one have to have IP laws be enforced on the internet....

Post reply on HN