Live data from Hacker News

€2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

twitter.com

91–100 of 398 posts

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#91
post #52
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuck me, they’re talking about using JPEG as an archival format before destroying the original. What is going on here.

> Because the book remains on-chain, the book does not die, but crosses the boundary of physical to digital. It reminds me of the video game SOMA, where people upload a brain-scan of themselves to live on after some catastrophe, essentially making a digital copy of their consciousness. But because they are also still physically alive, they see the digital version of themselves as a clone, someone else. To "complete t…

It goes back at least 50 years more, to Star Trek transporters.

And the most chilling version I've seen is in Charles Stross' Glasshouse, where some soldiers fight a virus that infects the consciousness of everyone using such a transporter. They "rescue" an infected population by chopping off their heads and throwing them into a transporter hacked to remove the virus. IIRC only the heads because transporting the entire bodies would be slower and the other side is expected to reconstruct a living body anyway.

A few hundred or thousand beheaded people later, they realize that the transporter is broken and would not reconstruct anything.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#93
post #82

Good grief, they are SO going to get sued if they try to do any of their proposed uses! (They no more own the rights to "Dune" than you would if you bought a DVD in a second hand shop and decided to start selling copies of it.) It'd have been a lot cheaper to ignore the NFT nonsense entirely, engage a motion picture rights agency, and pitch direct to Jodorowski and the Herbert estate for permission to use the IP.

Code is law right? And the code (that they wrote) says it’s okay so it’s okay.

Cryptobro logic.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#94
post #10

I guess, if you think in NFTs all day and truly believe that your JSON receipt is worth anything and gives you legal ownership, stuff like this happens to you in the real world, too.

But that is what the industry is selling (even that it's obviously not legally true).

"NFT stands for non-fungible token, which basically means that it’s a one-of-a-kind digital asset that belongs to you and you only." https://fortune.com/2021/12/18/nft-making-selling/

Fortune, e.g., misinterpretes it in that same way. Anyone can make copies of an NFT backed asset unless you use other legal or technical methods to limit copies.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#95
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if you upload copyright protected data in cleartext on a blockchain without having the distribution rights?

You can't really put content on the blockchain, that costs a surprising amount because of all the proof-of-waste. What happens is people put the content on a host and the URL on the blockchain. I suppose in theory it could be kept in IPFS, but few NFTs seem to bother with that.

I’m tempted to upload a magnet URL dump to a cheap blockchain (there has to be one, right?)

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#96
post #28
post #17

2 things confuse me about this. 1. This was a normal auction and not an NFT one. How is a DAO enforced in this case? What happens if the nominated bidder decides to go rogue and bid more or less than the decided cap? What happens if the price of Ethereum drops to the point that the DAO is no longer able to find the 2.6M they need? 2. If this is an auction then there has to be another bidder (I doubt even the people i…

According to the buzzfeed article it was bought by one guy, and then the DAO community appears to reimburse him. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amansethi/spicedao-dune...

And he is also using the DAO to fund his 800k capital gains taxes.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the "core team" has started paying themselves ~$30k a month each But don't forget this team has the Q1 deliverable of presenting "a film treatment and budget by Roble Ridge Productions for the original animated limited series inspired by the book for a community vote on Snapshot" - which one can only assume will be a lot of work... :)

And also will be unauthorized since they own no rights to derivative work (or even the original work)

> And also will be unauthorized since they own no rights to derivative work (or even the original work)

I'm sorry for the confusion, but my post was supposed to be humorous.

On reflection I think there's nothing that can actually be said about this auction that can possibly be as funny/sad as the original situation.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#99
To be honest this looks like a very smart marketing strategy to me, making something so dumb that everyone starts talking about it.

This strategy is also used a lot in Tik Tok videos for example: you write the caption with some obvious errors like "your" instead of "you are" and people starts correcting you in the replies making the tik tok algo rank your video higher

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#100
Also worth to understand and remember, from the linked thread: "digitisation does not = preservation. All they’ve done is replace a long term, resource-light asset with a short term and resource-heavy one that doesn’t work in the way the creator intended."
Post reply on HN