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

Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 270 posts

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#181

Post by jallen_dot_dev »

OJFord wrote: post #162
ALittleLight wrote: post #17

I would describe myself, usually, as not a jealous man. I don't recollect the last time I've felt jealousy. But, something about NFTs provokes anger within me. Maybe that anger is jealously. It feels like NFTs are a mockery of the "market" for lack of a better word. When I think of what I would need to sell (items or time doing labor) to get these amounts and how incredibly useless NFTs actually are... It's frustrati…

The dumbest thing about them in my haven't-been-bothered-to-so-much-as-search-for-them understanding (first and only really heard about them from Matt Levine's Money Stuff column) is that.. I can represent a painting or whatever as md5sum, sha256sum, anything else sum; take the photo again or compress it first? Unless I really should read up on it because I'll be blown away, just seems like any uniqueness necessarily…

It's worse than that. I can take the same exact digital image and issue 2 different NFTs for it on the same blockchain. Only the NFT itself is "provably unique" not the thing it represents.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#182

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

ALittleLight wrote: post #17

I would describe myself, usually, as not a jealous man. I don't recollect the last time I've felt jealousy. But, something about NFTs provokes anger within me. Maybe that anger is jealously. It feels like NFTs are a mockery of the "market" for lack of a better word. When I think of what I would need to sell (items or time doing labor) to get these amounts and how incredibly useless NFTs actually are... It's frustrati…

I think the difference is that, with NFTs, you know someone else is losing out BIG time and, being a compassionate human being, you feel sad that they're being taken advantage of. In the cases of inherited wealth and the lottery, huge numbers of people are losing out to an infinitesimal degree, so it doesn't seem as bad.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#183

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

jonas21 wrote: post #168
ALittleLight wrote: post #17

I would describe myself, usually, as not a jealous man. I don't recollect the last time I've felt jealousy. But, something about NFTs provokes anger within me. Maybe that anger is jealously. It feels like NFTs are a mockery of the "market" for lack of a better word. When I think of what I would need to sell (items or time doing labor) to get these amounts and how incredibly useless NFTs actually are... It's frustrati…

I mean, sure, they make a mockery of the art market. But the art market seems to have had no trouble making a mockery of itself before NFTs came along. Like, why is this worth $58 million? It's a 10-foot tall balloon animal. https://www.doublestonesteel.com/blog/art-and-sculpture/koon... Or why is this worth $200 million? It's something a 5-year-old would make if you gave them an unlimited amount of finger paint. htt…

With the art market, at least you're buying something. Ownership is being transferred. As far as I can tell (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), with NFTs you're effectively buying nothing. The seller could just turn around tomorrow and make whatever it is you have worth literally nothing (if it wasn't already).

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#184

Post by acuozzo »

beforeolives wrote: post #52

I seriously doubt that the high-end NFT economy is sustainable in the long term. The people who are buying these are just burning money.

> The people who are buying these are just burning^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlaundering money.

FTFY

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#185

Post by mattdesl »

Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #91
basch wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would happen if you tried to sell imitation autographs, labeled as such? Im guessing there would be no market, unless you yourself were famous.

The difference is that a facsimile autograph would inevitably be of worse quality. The phony NFT on the other hand would be indistinguishable from "the real thing". Beyond the payload it's just pseudo-random bits generated by an arbitrary CPU, isn't it?

The NFT is not the image/media - it is the transaction securing a relationship and/or movement of tokens from the artists wallet to the buyers wallet (which may or may not point to a file hash, or some other data).

The authenticity of this is easily verified by querying the transaction directly from the on-chain smart contract.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#186

Post by mionhe »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #182
ALittleLight wrote: post #17

I would describe myself, usually, as not a jealous man. I don't recollect the last time I've felt jealousy. But, something about NFTs provokes anger within me. Maybe that anger is jealously. It feels like NFTs are a mockery of the "market" for lack of a better word. When I think of what I would need to sell (items or time doing labor) to get these amounts and how incredibly useless NFTs actually are... It's frustrati…

I think the difference is that, with NFTs, you know someone else is losing out BIG time and, being a compassionate human being, you feel sad that they're being taken advantage of. In the cases of inherited wealth and the lottery, huge numbers of people are losing out to an infinitesimal degree, so it doesn't seem as bad.

How are huge amount of people losing out if someone passes money to their children, exactly? Was the money supposed to be given to the government and redistributed?

And as for the lottery, the reason that states/countries have lotteries is because they make buckets of money off of them. Is the state at fault, then? While I personally think it's a waste of money to participate, people choose to give money to the lottery, and are told up front what the odds are of winning, which are very bad.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#187

Post by adflux »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #183
jonas21 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, sure, they make a mockery of the art market. But the art market seems to have had no trouble making a mockery of itself before NFTs came along. Like, why is this worth $58 million? It's a 10-foot tall balloon animal. https://www.doublestonesteel.com/blog/art-and-sculpture/koon... Or why is this worth $200 million? It's something a 5-year-old would make if you gave them an unlimited amount of finger paint. htt…

With the art market, at least you're buying something . Ownership is being transferred. As far as I can tell (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), with NFTs you're effectively buying nothing . The seller could just turn around tomorrow and make whatever it is you have worth literally nothing (if it wasn't already).

For most NFTs you are essentially buying a record which links to an url on a platform. The video is not encoded in the nft

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#188

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

idoh wrote: post #142
benlivengood wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's righteous anger at a waste of resources and critical lack of understanding. NFTs aren't commodities or assets, they're just conspicuous consumption. Dramatically showing off how much money a person can waste on an illusion is cringe-worthy. It makes me annoyed in the same way pay-to-play games annoy me.

Agreed, and it's a very weird type of conspicuous consumption. You can't really hang the NFT on your wall, or drive up to a fancy dinner in an NFT. I guess you can brag about it?

I don't get how you can even brag about it. You can't say "I own this piece of art", you have to say "I own a pointer to this piece of art". And even that could end up a null pointer on somebody else's whim.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#189

Post by jrochkind1 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #80
jrochkind1 wrote: post #12

When someone bought this NFT (or in general), did someone sign a contract with you saying they transferred ownership in the intellectual property the NFT "represented"? (Ie, was at the other end of the URL, I guess?) Cause the NFT itself means nothing to courts or laws, does it? If someone owns the copyright in that video, they can send YouTube takedown notices. But what, if anything, makes NFT proof of ownership of…

NFTs generally aren't a transfer of copyright. > An NFT is a bit like a collectible certificate of authenticity, but its owner does not actually buy the copyright itself - meaning the artwork the NFT represents can still be shown wherever the original artist or creator chooses. So the whole question is moot. All you own is the NFT and the NFT is associated with some cultural artifact but doesn't represent any legal r…

The question seems to be subject to a lot of confusion. A lot of other people in this thread seem to believe differently.

The article in the OP also seems to believe differently, which is what made me ask the question.

> But now the much-loved clip of baby Charlie gnawing on his brother Harry's finger will be taken off YouTube after it was sold for $760,999 (£538,000).

> The Davies-Carr family auctioned the clip as an NFT, a non-fungible token.

The quote says the video was sold, and that this will naturally result in it being removed from you tube, and then explains it was sold "as an NFT" which is "like a certificate to say that you own something digital".

I think you may be right, but the majority of people talking about NFT's don't seem to realize it. Including a bunch of people in this thread.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#190

Post by jrochkind1 »

mdoms wrote: post #70
jrochkind1 wrote: post #12

When someone bought this NFT (or in general), did someone sign a contract with you saying they transferred ownership in the intellectual property the NFT "represented"? (Ie, was at the other end of the URL, I guess?) Cause the NFT itself means nothing to courts or laws, does it? If someone owns the copyright in that video, they can send YouTube takedown notices. But what, if anything, makes NFT proof of ownership of…

This is covered in the article.

I've read the article three times now, I'm not sure which part you are talking about. Could you quote the passage?
Post reply on HN