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

171–180 of 398 posts

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

#171

Post by tluyben2 »

charcircuit wrote: post #165
DemocracyFTW wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

Sure but ipfs hosting etc rely on one or a few hosts; if you use a blockchain like btc, at least it is vast and that means someone will be hosting at least until btc reaches $0.

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

#172

Post by tomerv »

haasted wrote: post #131
SahAssar wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Did you actually read the post? They propose to put it on-chain, and even say

> [O]ur NFT collection could very possibly become the largest on-chain collection ever in the history of Ethereum. Time would only be on our side because as gas becomes more expensive, the window of opportunity to bypass our on-chain NFT collection would fade away.

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

#173

Post by xiphias2 »

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.

There are laws for ICOs as well when they are marketed in US: they are securities. The SEC knows this perfectly, they just don't do anything for some reason.

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

#174

Post by kybernetikos »

jl6 wrote: post #158

For most of human history, people have lived in small, local information bubbles which were hard to penetrate with facts from the outside world. We see this manifest as the pre-industrial global patchwork of weird and wonderful religious/spiritual/cultural variety. Then somehow the world started to join up and information began to seep into local cultures and sweep away a lot of these pre-rational beliefs. And for a…

I think it's access to broadcast media. When access to broadcast media was heavily gatekept, the official reality bubbles were few and strengthened everywhere. Now everyone has it, there can be far more bubbles.

I also hope that we're in a transitional time as people get used to the new technology. I'm sure that it took people a while to understand how much they should believe newspapers or not when they first came along. And it's laughable to people now that War of The Worlds caused such a sensation when aired on the radio, or the BBC spaghetti harvest april fools was believed by so many.

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

#175

Post by [deleted] »

charcircuit wrote: post #165
DemocracyFTW wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

[deleted]

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

#176

Post by rossdavidh »

jl6 wrote: post #158

For most of human history, people have lived in small, local information bubbles which were hard to penetrate with facts from the outside world. We see this manifest as the pre-industrial global patchwork of weird and wonderful religious/spiritual/cultural variety. Then somehow the world started to join up and information began to seep into local cultures and sweep away a lot of these pre-rational beliefs. And for a…

The "something" you refer to, is the problem of scale. Within a "small, local information bubble", you have enough experience with each source of information to be able to accurately evaluate its reliability. Some in your hunter/gatherer group were reliable, others were not, you knew who was which.

With a large group, at some point you can no longer tell, because each source is a one-time source (or close to it). Plus, the potential profits from compromising that source become so large that, for example, newspapers get bought by corporations, to help mold popular opinion. People cannot tell who they can trust, but they know there's a lot of untrustworthy out there. So, they retreat back into a local bubble.

Whoever is in this person's local bubble, is currently getting a valuable data point as to their trustworthiness. :)

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

#177

Post by gilleain »

sdoering wrote: post #132
gilleain wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 actual…

Well ideally digitisation would not be destructive, I suppose. With any preservation or analysis of historical artefacts there is some risk/reward calculation. Like some books are so delicate that there is an approach to scan them while still closed:

https://news.mit.edu/2016/computational-imaging-method-reads...

not sure how much that is used, though (not my area :) )

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

#178

Post by cmckn »

TheDong wrote: post #8
jaclaz wrote: post #3

Since it is an auction, besides the winning bidder, there was at least another bidder, which makes two of them and is even more perplexing. It is not really the "Dune" book, but rather its storyboard, more details and a few photos here: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211122-doomed-dune-s...

> Since it is an auction, besides the winning bidder, there was at least another bidder, which makes two of them and is even more perplexing. I see nothing perplexing about it because this was not an ordinary auction, but an auction with one member being a public DAO, where the amount of money the DAO will bid is thus public. Let's say the DAO bids $100, but they have $200 in contributions. Someone can then safely bi…

I’ve never thought about this! That’s hilarious.

Although I assume, like everything crypto, there’s some centralized SPOF; in this case, the one guy from the “team” making the actual bids, who could stop things from getting truly out of hand.

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

#179

Post by chillfox »

leodriesch wrote: post #124

Im just wondering how they’ve spent MILLIONS of dollars on this auction and nobody ever told them this wasn’t gonna work. How is this even possible? Didn’t they tell anyone about their plan before executing it?

I am sure they told a bunch of other cryptobros about it and they were all like yeah big brain idea.

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

#180

Post by 1_player »

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.

"""Since each page of the book will require many miners (minters), we must decide on what type of NFT each minter gets. I propose the following NFT variations ordered from easiest to most complex:

1. Every minter is rewarded with an identical NFT of the page.

2. Every minter is rewarded with a fraction of the final NFT that contains the page. [...]

3. By leveraging progressive JPEG 7 tech, every minter gets a unique NFT which contains the uploaded image but with different degrees of quality. [...]"""

Holy fucking shit. This could be extremely high quality satire, but they're serious, which makes it even funnier.

Post reply on HN