TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing
clubnft.com
TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing
1–10 of 195 posts
Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing
#2> The value of an NFT is in having the right to insert yourself into that story, as the owner of that work, and with the ability to transfer that right to another person (i.e. selling the work).
This is a false statement. The NFT doesn’t make you the owner of ‘the work’. It makes you the owner of the NFT.
> The same way purchasing a painting gives you the right to resell that painting and prove to others that you are the owner, but does not necessarily convey copyright or other rights (unless worked out separately via a contract), purchasing an NFT gives you the right to resell that NFT and prove to others that you are the owner.
I.e, In the same way that if you own a paining, the painting is yours and not the copyright. If you own an NFT, only the NFT is yours and not the artwork.
> Just like a deed conveys ownership of a house at some address, the token conveys ownership of that media.
No it doesn’t.
If you own a house, there are many things you can do with the house that others are legally prohibited from doing.
If you own an NFT, you have no more rights over the media than someone who doesn’t own an NFT.
> Just like you can invite a neighbor over to visit your house, and a car driving by can take a photo of your house, anybody can view the media associated with your NFT.
This is obviously absurd.
If you own a house, it’s illegal for people to visit without being invited. If you own an NFT, an infinite number of people can I air the media without you even knowing, let alone inviting them.
Also, a person driving by your house with a car can’t legally park in your driveway or come in and sleep in your bed, whereas someone with a copy of the media can do anything the owner of the NFT can do, including invite others to look at it.
Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing
#3> The value of an NFT is in having the right to insert yourself into that story, as the owner of that work, and with the ability to transfer that right to another person (i.e. selling the work). This is a false statement. The NFT doesn’t make you the owner of ‘the work’. It makes you the owner of the NFT. > The same way purchasing a painting gives you the right to resell that painting and prove to others that you are…
Society has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of land. Subject, of course, to caveats and rules and fine print about what "ownership" of the land really means. The government can sieze it, for example. It's called a deed.
Similarly, this community has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of a piece of art. Subject, again, to caveats and rules and fine print.
If at this point you are trying to argue semantics when most of the community has a pretty intuitive sense of what exactly "owning an NFT" means, it seems a bit pointless.
Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing
#4> The value of an NFT is in having the right to insert yourself into that story, as the owner of that work, and with the ability to transfer that right to another person (i.e. selling the work). This is a false statement. The NFT doesn’t make you the owner of ‘the work’. It makes you the owner of the NFT. > The same way purchasing a painting gives you the right to resell that painting and prove to others that you are…
Society has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of land. Subject, of course, to caveats and rules and fine print about what "ownership" of the land really means. The government can sieze it, for example. It's called a deed. Similarly, this community has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and r…
> Similarly, this community has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of a piece of art.
Except that they simply haven’t.
Try taking someone’s house from them. You’ll find that it’s not just semantics that defines ownership.
Try copying the artwork pointed to by an NFT. You’ll find the NFT doesn’t stop you.
> If at this point you are trying to argue semantics when most of the community has a pretty intuitive sense of what exactly "owning an NFT" means, it seems a bit pointless.
I agree that it’s pointless to argue with people who think “owning an NFT” has any relationship to owning the artwork itself. It’s ok if people want to be part of a community who believe that together.
If you feel secure as a member of that community, don’t let the rest of us perturb you.
Have you considered that most people are not in fact part of that community, and that discussion of this point is quite relevant to anyone who hasn’t already committed themself to this belief?
Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
Society has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of land. Subject, of course, to caveats and rules and fine print about what "ownership" of the land really means. The government can sieze it, for example. It's called a deed. Similarly, this community has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and r…
> Similarly, this community has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of a piece of art. Except that they simply haven’t. Try taking someone’s house from them. You’ll find that it’s not just semantics that defines ownership. Try copying the artwork pointed to by an NFT. You’ll find the NFT doesn’t stop you. > If at this point you are tryin…
If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own, the right to transfer that NFT is the thing of value, and what gives it value is the person and context around who made it in the first place. Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none. Let me know when you make it all the way through, happy to continue the conversation.
Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Similarly, this community has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of a piece of art. Except that they simply haven’t. Try taking someone’s house from them. You’ll find that it’s not just semantics that defines ownership. Try copying the artwork pointed to by an NFT. You’ll find the NFT doesn’t stop you. > If at this point you are tryin…
If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own, the right to transfer that NFT is the thing of value, and what gives it value is the person and context around who made it in the first place. Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, w…
> If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along),
Wrong.
> I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own.
Yes, you contradict yourself.
> Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none.
Yes, which is not what you say in the parts I quoted - let’s remind ourselves:
> Just like a deed conveys ownership of a house at some address, the token conveys ownership of that media.
This is a common pattern in writing about this subject, which is why I point this out. It’s a standard Motte and Bailey technique, which is a dishonest form of persuasive writing.
Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Society has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of land. Subject, of course, to caveats and rules and fine print about what "ownership" of the land really means. The government can sieze it, for example. It's called a deed. Similarly, this community has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and r…
> Similarly, this community has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of a piece of art. Except that they simply haven’t. Try taking someone’s house from them. You’ll find that it’s not just semantics that defines ownership. Try copying the artwork pointed to by an NFT. You’ll find the NFT doesn’t stop you. > If at this point you are tryin…
[deleted]
Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own, the right to transfer that NFT is the thing of value, and what gives it value is the person and context around who made it in the first place. Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, w…
> If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), Wrong. > I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own. Yes, you contradict yourself. > Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none . Yes, which is not what you say in the parts I quoted - let’s remind ourselv…
For real estate lawyers, a full understanding of all the laws is important. For someone who might want to buy a house, a rough understanding is sufficient. That's why I provide both. Not everybody needs to know or care about the exact details in order to decide it is worth owning a house. But if they are interested, they can learn. I hope providing both sides of it is seen as useful in that light - it is not self-contradictory to make broad analogies that are useful, then explain exactly in detail where those analogies break down.
Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing
#9It seems to me lots of people who are buying NFTs were never that into graphic art in the first place, but they all of a sudden became graphic art aficionados because it's the only type of art that can be distributed via this NFT mechanism that they deem as socially fair because it has a generic "sticking it to the man" vibe.
Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing
#10It seems to me lots of people who are buying NFTs were never that into graphic art in the first place, but they all of a sudden became graphic art aficionados because it's the only type of art that can be distributed via this NFT mechanism that they deem as socially fair because it has a generic "sticking it to the man" vibe.
Yep - a side effect of this is that NFT art has a distinct aesthetic which is different from prior digital art. I am hoping that as the space settles down, less "lazy" art and more thoughtful art can rise to the forefront again.
NFTs are a useful mechanism for the digital art medium, I hope they come to be seen in that light a bit more and a bit less as valuable in and of themselves because of the mechanism.