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

I'd argue that it's really two sides of the same coin. Take a social graph where nodes are people. It's not that eliminating bad nodes is a good solution, it's just that when you eliminate the dangerously influential bad nodes (the bad ones with a disproportionate amount of connections), it can have the effect of redistributing interactions more evenly in the graph, which means any given node is more likely to be exposed to a greater variety of nodes.

Ideally, we wouldn't have to eliminate any bad nodes, but that would require a stable graph where bad nodes don't attract more and more connections. Which I believe is an alternative formulation of your comment about the need to regulate algorithms.

and no, the plan is not to burn the book. there is an ongoing joke by a few people in the dao. but they do not represent the majority and the aims of the dao explicitly are to do with the preservation and protection of the book. so thats not going to happen.

but people arent actually interested in conversation here. hn hates crypto. we get it. people hating something they arent a part of and dont understand. But we are still going to have fun and make things, and the good vibes win in the end.

* Is the material copyrightable? A novel is copyrightable, but a recipe is not. The layout format of a telephone book is copyrightable, but the contents of it are not.

* Is the copyright still in effect? Unfortunately, this is a less relevant question now, as anything written within living memory is under copyright, but it is still a required step.

* Is permission from the copyright holder required? If I am sold a copy of a computer program, I'm allowed to make whatever copies are necessary (e.g. copying from the hard drive to RAM) that are necessary to execute the program, without the permission of the copyright holder.

* What is being done with the copy? If I buy a work, the copyright owner has no right to prevent me from selling it, nor are they entitled to any portion of the proceeds. Re-sale of authorized copies, regardless of permission, are not infringements.

Ah...this has been debunked?

The story so far as I know is that "multiple US intelligence agencies" told Congress that (in 2016) people working for the Russian government hacked the DNC and provided the emails to Wikileaks.

Wikileaks didn't reveal its source, but Assange said "no, nope, it definitely wasn't the Russian government, no way".

Mueller proceeded to indict a lot of Russians who allegedly were involved.

Where/what was the debunking?

I agree there is a troubling bubble here. I just don't agree that the bubble in question has anything to do with crypto, as opposed to those getting their jollies dunking on crypto bros.

How many tweets do you have to read before you escape the bubble of OP and learn that the tweet is false...? (By my count, you have to go through 320 HN comments before you will find the first deeply-buried comment pointing out that OP is false and the buyers believed no such thing; this submission is at +501 points, BTW.) Here is a quote from an article published well over a month before OP tweeted: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amansethi/spicedao-dune...

"Now that they have won the bid, Saqib and his associates must make good on their promise to bring the bible to the people and prove that their fundraising approach was not just a gimmick.

As things stand, Saqib still owns Jodorowsky’s bible but is in the process of transferring ownership to the DAO. Meanwhile, the copyrights for the bible’s contents are held by multiple artists and their estates. Jodorowsky is now 92 years old; Jean Giraud, or Moebius, the legendary French illustrator who did all the storyboards, died in 2012; H.R. Giger, who designed the creepy home planet of the House of Harkonnen, died two years later.

“We can’t just scan it and put it on the internet,” Fang said. But by raising the money as a DAO, Fang said they hoped to show the various estates and stakeholders that there is a massive online interest in making the bible more accessible to the public."

They explicitly acknowledge they do not 'own the IP' and can't just scan it etc and it is positioning for negotiation for the actual IP.