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

131–140 of 398 posts

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

#131

Post by haasted »

SahAssar wrote: post #110
pjc50 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Read the linked parent forum post. They are talking exactly about putting the actual images on the blockchain.

Well, they won't. All NFTs are hosted on hilariously centralized services like googleusercontent.com and similar.

Browse through https://opensea.io/, the most prominent NFT marketplace at the moment. Digging through the DOM of their website will reveal a lot of links to quite standard content storage solutions. They usually go through a bit of trouble to prevent people from simply clicking "view image in new tab" to reveal the actual location, but it's not difficult to get around.

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

#132

Post by sdoering »

gilleain wrote: post #85
notRobot wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Archive.org has a non destructive book scanning technique! http://blog.archive.org/2021/02/09/meet-eliza-zhang-book-sca...

Nice. I suppose it also depends on how rare the item being scanned is. For a recent printed work, with multiple copies it's less important, while scanning a fragment from a Genizah or a notebook is much more careful process.

The first time I encountered a digital facsimile was when I studied medieval literature in Germany.

There is the great "Codex Manesse" [1] (I once had the opportunity to see the real one in an exhibition) that is one of a kind.

It is irreplaceable and there are but a selected few people who are even allowed to touch it (with gloves). It could not be damaged, but was digitized without harm nonetheless [2].

So I actually never thought of digitalisation as a destructive process.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Manesse?wprov=sfla1

[2]: https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/cpg848

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

#133

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

cdirkx wrote: post #52
mxxx wrote: 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…

The NFT craze reminds me of Nasrudin's "Smoke Seller."[0]

[0] https://u.cs.biu.ac.il/~schiff/Net/t26.jpg

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

#134

Post by sdoering »

chimen wrote: post #105

I had commented before the other week so I'm gonna quote myself from now whenever I see NFT: > I see a whole new wave of fouls about to lose their money to ponzi schemes and over-hyped "investments", much like it happened with the bitcoin/crypto train.

Sorry to be that guy, but I got stumped by 'fouls'. You probably meant to write 'fools'.

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

#135

Post by nkrisc »

knorker wrote: post #128
nkrisc wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like it was just a raffle. $250 for a 1 in 1,000 chance to win a prize worth ~$8,125. Happens all the time in school fundraisers and other community events. Of course they didn’t need to use a blockchain or cryptocurrency to hold a simple raffle, but here we are. Also in a raffle they usually just tell you when you’ve won. Better odds and potential return dollar for dollar than the lottery, though.

But a raffle doesn't have the copyright infringement. You can't make a bunch of copies of a Disney movie but with the ending cut off, and have them be the "losing" consolation prizes.

Right, it’s a raffle with more steps and dubious legality. Seems unnecessary when a regular raffle would have sufficed, but I suppose that wouldn’t have got attention.

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

#136

Post by sokoloff »

loceng wrote: post #89
astoor wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will be interesting to see how this, as in the whole DAO space, works out. Part of the problem with the ICO craze in 2017* is that the founders got all the money up front without having any obligation to do anything, so the tiny minority of well intentioned ones ended up simply enjoying the money rather than doing something hard like actual work. Seems like this is still a risk here - the founder can string people al…

Which is why there are rules and layers of checks to actually IPO - another term misappropriated to ICO like currency was misappropriated for cryptocurrency to mislead; stock markets would lose all trust and credibility if they didn't curate and require due diligence.

Perhaps we should look forward to innovations like “Special Purpose Acquisition Coins” then?

SPACs have gotten rid of much of the diligence traditionally part of the IPO process.

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

#137

Post by DemocracyFTW »

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...

[Q] Do we really want to be perceived as book burners?

[A] Tbh I don’t care too much what a bunch of normies that probably didn’t even know the book existed think. The book would still exist but digitized and in the blockchain.

[Q] Why not just use Arweave, IPFS, and a variety of other long-term digital preservation strategies? All of them are less expensive and resource-intensive.

IPFS is not permanent. If it stops being hosted it disappears. Arweave cannot compare to something like Ethereum which is a truly decentralized network. But upmost I would say that cost of uploading is a feat, not a problem. It would make our collection even more special.

These are a bunch of seriously sociopathic, inconsiderate and reckless thugs. I'm happy to see them fleecing each other.

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

#138

Post by ashtonkem »

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...

It’s entirely possible that that’s exactly what happened. The space is awash with people that got lucky in the initial boom and have convinced themselves (and a few others) that they’re investing geniuses and not just lucky fools. Come to think of it, this phenomenon isn’t limited to bitcoin, although the signaling behavior is quite different than a VC that’s gotten lucky once.

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

#139

Post by alisonkisk »

schleck8 wrote: post #117
ricardobeat wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No post body was provided.

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

#140

Post by ashtonkem »

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...

I’m reminded somewhat of cases where VCs like A16Z push DAOs as the future, and we’re supposed to just pretend that they’re not going to buy up as many tokens as possible so that they can extract maximal profits like usual. It seems like exactly the same scam as ICOs with another level of indirection.
Post reply on HN