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

161–170 of 398 posts

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

#161

Post by sneak »

Sephiroth87 wrote: post #60
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...

Let’s suspend disbelief for a moment and pretend everything worked as they say, in what world is giving access to the book to the few people that pay for the nft, “democratising”?

NFT data is public, generally.

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

#162

Post by libertine »

knorker wrote: post #112
libertine wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I guess we're all waiting for the first NFT legal dispute, and see how it will roll out and what precedents it will set for the future.

Because until then, they're all playing a make-belief game.

Like the guy who claimed the moon and actually sold plots of land on the moon to people[0]. He was navigating a "loop hole" and no one cared about it, or even took it serious. But if people are putting money upfront, at what point it should be addressed?

[0]https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/25/meet-the-man...

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

#163

Post by sneak »

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.

IPFS isn't hosting, it's transport. You can't "put something on ipfs" and expect it to stay there any more than when you "put something on http".

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

#165

Post by charcircuit »

DemocracyFTW wrote: post #137
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…

>If it stops being hosted it disappears

The same thing applies to blockchains. If no one is hosting it, you can't download it.

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

#166

Post by tluyben2 »

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.

What blockchain? Some newer ones are not expensive (but also are not decentralized enough yet). They dismiss ipfs straight away in the responses already for it and actually say they will put the actual imagine on the blockchain. This will cost something (possibly a lot) depending on which chain, but they have $4m+ left to burn on ‘the good cause’. This all stinks but I must agree, if you want something for eternity (well, in their minds), putting the content on a big (btc/eth) chain would be the only way; seems the rest is far more brittle.

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

#167

Post by [deleted] »

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...

[deleted]

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

#168

Post by jkarni »

netcan wrote: post #143
astoor wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Sure. OTOH, I think cryptocynicism may be blinding us to the possibility of doing exactly what this hapless bunch did, but actually ending up owning the copyright to something... as they intended. The road from there to something noteworthy is still long, but I don't think it's inconceivable. As I said, silliness is prevalent. That doesn't mean something useful can't emerge. But obviously, yes, most of most of the st…

> The road from there to something noteworthy is still long, but I don't think it's inconceivable.

That already happens. People who know what they are doing (i.e. professionals) already buy scripts and book rights and make movies out of them. It works pretty well already.

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

#169

Post by tluyben2 »

captn3m0 wrote: post #95
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.

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

Sure, just take a newly launched one. People are launching bollocks coins every day.

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

#170

Post by Pasorrijer »

robjan wrote: post #149
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...

The language and behaviour is consistent with the cant generally spoken by the crypto community. It's a similar idea to /r/wsb/ and does the job of identifying insiders while keeping outsiders out.

Not supporting crypto one way or another. But EVERY technical industry is full of jargon.

"Did you verify that the RVSM system was talking to the FMS after completing the JIC during the RON?" - Aviation "Are you sure the packets are flowing on UDP? Can someone check the CAT6?" - Simple networking

Etc. So I wouldn't say the jargon is constructed solely to keep outsiders out.

Post reply on HN