51–60 of 171 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
My understanding is that this is not correct, it conflates all NFT transactions without nuance, if one buys intellectual property via NFT and can prove it (which is ostensibly NFT's raison d'etre) then I see no reason why they couldn't exercise their rights to it (i.e. sue for copyright infringement, ect)
Quoted post unavailable.
My understanding is that this is not correct, it conflates all NFT transactions without nuance, if one buys intellectual property via NFT and can prove it (which is ostensibly NFT's raison d'etre) then I see no reason why they couldn't exercise their rights to it (i.e. sue for copyright infringement, ect)
Still, legally speaking, who is exactly enforcing it? Opensea? MPAA? I get that is going to be a fun question to answer since you can technically sue for anything ( but its not a guarantee that a judge will throw it out if he/she sees something sufficiently in the 'wasting my time' category ).
Quoted post unavailable.
No, this is gross. It implies that marriage certificates grants you the exclusive rights to have sex with another party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no value in the endless repetition. There's also no value in getting worked up about it. The only viable response is to accept it's going to happen and have meaningful discussions elsewhere.
> The only viable response is to accept it's going to happen and have meaningful discussions elsewhere. That is precisely why I said Hackernews is doing itself a disservice: This makes people leave the site, like you just proved by suggesting it.
I agree, it is. However, that's the collective choice that's been made, and it's very clear it's been made. So I accept that.
I'll post on crypto threads when I feel I have something to contribute, but I won't allow myself to be drug into the muck.
There's other venues for good discussion on crypto topics, so you're not really losing anything. And the large majority here doesn't feel they're losing anything. It works out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that this is not correct, it conflates all NFT transactions without nuance, if one buys intellectual property via NFT and can prove it (which is ostensibly NFT's raison d'etre) then I see no reason why they couldn't exercise their rights to it (i.e. sue for copyright infringement, ect)
Oh, there is nuance. Still, legally speaking, who is exactly enforcing it? Opensea? MPAA? I get that is going to be a fun question to answer since you can technically sue for anything ( but its not a guarantee that a judge will throw it out if he/she sees something sufficiently in the 'wasting my time' category ).
Quoted post unavailable.
I feel like this comedian knows their audience
Quoted post unavailable.
My current way to explain to non techies is that it's like those "Name a star" sales: * Artificial seeming scarcity out of something that's inherently abundant * No actual ownership of actual thing * Instead, a overly-detailed focus on mechanics of the process: We will send you a gilded certificate; we will put your entry into a leather bound book; this cook will be registered with United States Copyright Office; it…