(Thread IKs:
Platystemon)
|
The Bloop posted:not really since digital things are literally identical "Look at any photograph or work of art. If you could duplicate exactly the first tiny dot of color, and then the next and the next, you would end with a perfect copy of the whole, indistinguishable from the original in every way, including the so-called 'moral value' of the art itself. Nothing can transcend its smallest elements." - CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Ethics of Greed"
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
Honest Thief posted:you "own" the transaction data not a jpg, you can't claim rights on the art, you can't claim royalties on it's reproduction, you can't even prevent anyone selling another nft with the same art Literally not what I'm saying. No loving duh NFTs don't give you IP rights, neither do certificates of authenticity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:23
|
|
|
then what is it you're saying
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:it's like i sold you a physical ledger with a spongebob stamp on it and asked you 30k for it Except you actually just got a post-it with an address of a guy who can tell you where he put the ledger. That guy can move, or he can move the ledger
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:not really since digital things are literally identical This isn't unique to digital artwork, it's just taken to its most extreme position. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproductuon grapples with some of this and it was written in 1935.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
Gods_Butthole posted:This isn't unique to digital artwork, it's just taken to its most extreme position. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproductuon grapples with some of this and it was written in 1935. But you still haven't addressed what NFTs solve that existing intellectual property law does not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
more falafel please posted:Except you actually just got a post-it with an address of a guy who can tell you where he put the ledger. That guy can move, or he can move the ledger c++ pointers of pointers but with money
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:But you still haven't addressed what NFTs solve that existing intellectual property law does not. They're hot hot hot and people give moneys
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:then what is it you're saying I can own an original Ansel Adams photograph or I can own reproduction print of it. For all intents and purposes the only difference between the two is the record of the transaction and or a certificate of authenticity. NFTs perform that function for digital objects. Whether or not they're implemented in a stupid way (e.g. they just give you a link to a url) or they're treated as something somehow more encompassing than that by idiots is beside the point. Yes there are also ways of performing this function without the blockchain. There are lots of reasons NFTs are stupid, but if you cut through the bullshit that's what they're doing, authenticating that you "own" the original.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
Gods_Butthole posted:Literally not what I'm saying. No loving duh NFTs don't give you IP rights, neither do certificates of authenticity. then what part are you not understanding (or deliberately trolling about) that authentication implies some sort of action to verify: if there's a lawsuit challenging [whatever the hell you think your NFT does] then someone still has to be willing to go to court and say "yes I swear that [some nonsensical statement] is true; and to back up this claim, I present the record from when [some real person who demonstrably exists] actually reviewed [whatever] was totally legit, before signing the certificate" just having a record is as meaningless as an 8.5x11 deed that says you own the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
nfts have a transaction history that would be, I guess, impossible to fake. the legal/social significance of the NFT exists outside of that system though. you would still need a contract that says ownership of the NFT confers ownership of the work
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
the fine art market has always been a money laundering front the digital art market has always been for defrauding VC
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
Gods_Butthole posted:It's the difference between an original painting and a reproduction of it. . No its not
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
silentsnack posted:then what part are you not understanding (or deliberately trolling about) that authentication implies some sort of action to verify: if there's a lawsuit challenging [whatever the hell you think your NFT does] then someone still has to be willing to go to court and say "yes I swear that [some nonsensical statement] is true; and to back up this claim, I present the record from when [some real person who demonstrably exists] actually reviewed [whatever] was totally legit, before signing the certificate" It's doesn't authenticate your right to anything, it authenticates that you bought an "original" for which other people might be willing to give you money in exchange for their ability to say they own the "original". It's only "original" in an entirely socially constructed way that rests on tenous conventions, but it is distinguishable as having a unique chain of ownership on the public ledger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
paul_soccer12 posted:No its not Yes it is
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
Very obviously it is not
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
I skipped the last 700 posts because NFTs, Crypto, BTC all of it is now, not even secretly but over tik tok, are alllll burning gas to mine that poo poo in addition to everything else. Crypto really, really was us shooting ourselves in the foot one more time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
Gods_Butthole posted:I can own an original Ansel Adams photograph or I can own reproduction print of it. For all intents and purposes the only difference between the two is the record of the transaction and or a certificate of authenticity. NFTs perform that function for digital objects. Whether or not they're implemented in a stupid way (e.g. they just give you a link to a url) or they're treated as something somehow more encompassing than that by idiots is beside the point. the original of what though? the digital object it's certifying isn't the art itself since that's an afterthought. if you're saying authenticity as in you can find someone who will believe that you own that piece of art because of an nft sure i guess
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
Gods_Butthole posted:it authenticates that you bought an "original" no. it authenticates that you paid someone to create a digital cookie that says whatever you want it to say. you have to realize [a thing being factually true] is not quite the same as [someone claiming that a thing is true] right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
paul_soccer12 posted:Very obviously it is not Fine, paintings are a bad example because you can quibble about brush strokes. It's the difference between an original photograph of the "artistic" variety and a reproduction. Zero material difference between the two, but the original has social significance that people value. I personally don't care about owning an original Ansel Adams, but other people do. If I own an "original" and more importantly I have someway to reasonably prove to people that it's "original" then I can sell it for much more money than a simple reproduction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
So are people so alienated from the concept of what it means to really own something they think "owning" something via nft means anything? Or is it bigger fool theory investing? Its not like you can charge royalties on your nft art
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
Gods_Butthole posted:Fine, paintings are a bad example because you can quibble about brush strokes. It's the difference between an original photograph of the "artistic" variety and a reproduction. Zero material difference between the two, but the original has social significance that people value. I personally don't care about owning an original Ansel Adams, but other people do. If I own an "original" and more importantly I have someway to reasonably prove to people that it's "original" then I can sell it for much more money than a simple reproduction. i sort of get what youre saying here but i dont think there is much of an aura to an nft
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:52
|
|
|
me: theyre of course using the technology to kill the planet you: but it might benefit legitimate artists at some point!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
Why don't we use the technology to enrich ourselves, mint some twoday nfts
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:56
|
|
|
I can't charge royalties for owning an original Picasso, but I can certainly accumulate social prestige and sell it to someone else for money. One of the first big NFT sales was that Beeple image. I personally wouldn't pay money for Beeple's weird art, but some people would. With the NFT there now exists a public record in the ledger that Beeple packaged an image with the token and then sold it to some moron. That moron can now point to that ledger and say, "why yes I did pay over a million dollars for this hellscape jpg and got it directly from the artist himself  "
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
Gods_Butthole posted:Fine, paintings are a bad example because you can quibble about brush strokes. It's the difference between an original photograph of the "artistic" variety and a reproduction. Zero material difference between the two, but the original has social significance that people value. I personally don't care about owning an original Ansel Adams, but other people do. If I own an "original" and more importantly I have someway to reasonably prove to people that it's "original" then I can sell it for much more money than a simple reproduction. Nope it's still just a file with a hash that doesn't change in any way if it doesn't have a hash
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
paul_soccer12 posted:Nope it's still just a file with a hash that doesn't change in any way if it doesn't have a hash It's still just a canvas with a notarized piece of paper that doesn't change in any way of it doesn't have a notarized piece of paper
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 23:01
|
|
|
Lol ok man
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 23:01
|
|
|
If you think about it, the only things you really own are what you can carry on your person while running away Maybe the real ownership is the friends we made along the way?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
The Saucer Hovers posted:me: theyre of course using the technology to kill the planet My original point isn't that NFTs are good, in fact I was saying the opposite. That Chadwick ripoff demonstrated that they're bad at the thing they're ostensibly supposed to do should probably be done someway else that doesn't kill the planet or not be done at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
the most tiring thing about NFTs is that when you understand it and think it's stupid, the fans keep re-explaining to you. no I get it, it's loving stupid, thanks
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
you have to strain a lot to consider nfts as proof of authenticity when the image isn't packed in it, not reproduced by the artist in any way and not even its perpetuity is questionable just today news came out about the boseman nft being redesigned. the proof of authenticity isn't for the art
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
Gods_Butthole posted:It's the difference between an original painting and a reproduction of it. "Hurr durr just right click save as" isn't the epic own you think it is. i get you still though, what makes a painting an original is only as good as the authority which determines and applies the material criteria used to determine the originality of a work. adding a difficult to generate number on top is really just an attempt to replace the messy physicality of material objects with a mathematic proof of ownership of those objects. when really it's just a fancy catalogue number that can just as easily refer to a real or a fake. except with jpgs there are no reals or fakes anyhow, there is no original in the first place
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
Gods_Butthole posted:My original point isn't that NFTs are good, in fact I was saying the opposite. That Chadwick ripoff demonstrated that they're bad at the thing they're ostensibly supposed to do should probably be done someway else that doesn't kill the planet or not be done at all. sweet now we can hug
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
The Saucer Hovers posted:sweet now we can hug Thanks 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
there is no ownership of something which is infinitely reproducible with zero intrinsic cost of production and that's why my posts are all public domain and worth what you paid for them
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
tokin opposition posted:there is no ownership of something which is infinitely reproducible with zero intrinsic cost of production and that's why my posts are all public domain and worth what you paid for them this is why all my best tweets are just copied straight from here
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:this is why all my best tweets are just copied straight from here un/p
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:you have to strain a lot to consider nfts as proof of authenticity when the image isn't packed in it, not reproduced by the artist in any way and not even its perpetuity is questionable They're obviously implemented really poorly. When I first heard about them I assumed that the data was packaged with the token. I have no idea why they use a web server link instead, because you're absolutely correct that it undermines their ability to confer original ownership.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i sort of get what youre saying here but i dont think there is much of an aura to an nft You're probably right that there isn't, but there's money to be made in trying to make one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2021 23:18
|
|