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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 398 posts

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

#111

Post by jaclaz »

black_puppydog wrote: post #81
digitaltrees wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the sake of accuracy, it appears to me that it is $30k per month total for the core team not each. There is a total maximum operating budget of $50k per month including a maximum of $30k for the core team. When the core team has 4. That is about $8k per month each.

8K seems plenty when you can do your "work" from anywhere in the world (and probably have a good reason to not be too easy to find by your scam victims)

... and possibly if the "work" is not like 40-50 hours/week, but more like a couple hours per month ...

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

#112

Post by knorker »

libertine wrote: post #87
knorker wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, that's interesting. They can't, of course, sell the images themselves; they don't hold the copyright. But they can sell URLs referring to the content. That's pretty clever. I mean it's super dumb, but it's clever. By that I mean that an NFT whose content is an URL to an image you don't own, is dumb. But it's clever to "mint" these, and you'll find more fools to buy the NFTs if you give the appearance of legitimac…

I don't know the legal intricacies of this, like to what extent can they sell not the content but the actual physical square piece of the book, under an NFT? For example, a company called MSCHF sold 999 fake Warhol drawings and 1 real[0], all mixed up so no one knows which one is the real one, for 250$ each... can they do this? Is this legal? At least people were aware of it, so I doubt it's fraud. Here's the math of…

> I don't know the legal intricacies of this, like to what extent can they sell not the content but the actual physical square piece of the book, under an NFT?

I am also not a lawyer, but for the physical piece either you own it or you don't. If you own it then surely there must be some contract where you "lease it out" to the "keeper" of it. Or if you're the one "keeping" it (and owning it), then some contract that you can't sell the NFT to one person and the physical item to another?

But all these have to be legal contracts. And if you have a legal contract with someone about how you're not allowed to sell a physical thing you own, ever, do you truly own it? (not to mention who is on the other side of this contract? Who has legal standing to sue if you violate the contract?)

One thing this reminds me of is Commonhold (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonhold), which is a home ownership form in some countries, and some other apartment ownership models. In some models you don't "own" your own apartment, but own a stake in the house, and this stake gives you the full access to a contractually specified apartment number.

That and, of course, its similarity to bearer bonds.

Let's say you own the NFT and legally possess the physical item. Can you retire the NFT, and have it be physical-only from now on? Can you still sell it as an NFT after you sold the physical item? The simple answer to that last part is "of course you can. NFT means nothing".

You can mint an NFT for my house. But good luck trying to kick me out. The police will not be impressed.

The owner of this book needs not to make sure "math" secures transfer of legal ownership, but law. And that's the problem with these blockchain inventions.

> For example, a company called MSCHF sold 999 fake Warhol drawings and 1 real[0], all mixed up so no one knows which one is the real one, for 250$ each... can they do this? Is this legal? At least people were aware of it, so I doubt it's fraud.

Again I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that no it's not fraud, but it's copyright infringement. And if the copyright holder doesn't sue you, then that's their choice.

But good luck buying a Disney movie for $10, and selling 9 copies+original for $1 each. Even without profit the mouse will go after you, and he'll be legally right.

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

pjc50 wrote: post #64
Genmutant wrote: post #46

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.

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by astoor »

netcan wrote: post #68

This is, obviously, silly. There are a lot of silly cryptostuff. Silliness aside though, this highlights a point to me. Methods of organising are (1) very important (2) relatively undiverse (3) hard to create out of whole cloth. The creation/ascendance of "modern" joint stock companies circa 1600 was (arguably) responsible for some serious revolution. The 90s produced some very interesting examples: GNU, Linux, Wikip…

The fact that cryptocurrency schemes like DAOs allow people to raise vast sums of money in very short spaces of time with no evidence of anyone involved having the ability, skills or even intention of delivering anything, seems to be fundamentally flawed to me. It seems that you are only going to attract dreamers who want to be able to get rich really quickly without having to do anything much, and I wouldn't have thought those would include the sorts of people who would be most likely to put in the time and effort and attention to detail and hard work required to build things that are truly worthwhile and which will stand the test of time.

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

#116

Post by whywhywhywhy »

saulrh wrote: post #12

> 1. Make the book public (to the > extent permitted by law) Extra dumb: A big chunk of it is already online. https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNGBuasYa_WETf7sF6Q9W3S... Seems like NFT logic in reverse, lol

> Extra dumb: A big chunk of it is already online

Let's not pretend some low quality jpegs in a Google Photos album is an acceptable archive for this work.

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

#117

Post by schleck8 »

ricardobeat wrote: post #50
camjw wrote: post #30

My favorite part of this story is that they DAO has actually raised ~$8m, spent $3m on the book (10x the expected auction price), then the "core team" has started paying themselves ~$30k a month[0]. Also, how is this "decentralised" when one person owns over 50% of the voting token? [0] https://snapshot.org/#/dunedao.eth/proposal/0x2038fc240d0e85...

It's unbelievably funny and scary at the same time. This is the profile of their "Marketing Lead": https://twitter.com/YOJIMBO_KING/media Qualifications listed for their team include "Bitcoin Class of 2013", not sure if a joke or not? The impression is that this is a bunch of 13 year olds who suddenly got a windfall...

How can they take themselves seriously?

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

#118

Post by rvz »

camjw wrote: post #30

My favorite part of this story is that they DAO has actually raised ~$8m, spent $3m on the book (10x the expected auction price), then the "core team" has started paying themselves ~$30k a month[0]. Also, how is this "decentralised" when one person owns over 50% of the voting token? [0] https://snapshot.org/#/dunedao.eth/proposal/0x2038fc240d0e85...

> Also, how is this "decentralised" when one person owns over 50% of the voting token?

A professional definitive edition exit scam, waiting to happen. It is ConstitutionDAO all over again, but this time without the refunds.

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

#120

Post by tluyben2 »

mxxx wrote: post #34
stnikolauswagne wrote: post #22

I made the mistake of diving a bit deeper into the group who bought it and found a proposal where they are talking about literally burning the book they just bought after digitizing it for … reasons I guess [0] At this point I just hope its some sort of practical joke or whatever because this just seems a bit much. [0] https://forum.spicedao.xyz/t/nft-of-the-book-w-proof-of-jpeg...

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

But the person who made the suggestion claims to be a post-doc and they ‘invented’ ‘JPEG mining’ whatever that is. So…
Post reply on HN