NFT is not ART. It is digital ledger that says that the art belongs to someone (you, for example). The art itself can be freely copied. NFTs are not copyright enforcement.
There is no art involved. A file is way too big to be stored in the ledger. They just point to a url which is very much mutable, can go down, or change to whatever the fuck at any given time.
Yes. But you don’t own the art or the right to it, just the token leading to it. You literally don’t have the rights to the image so you cant copyright enforce it.
All you have is a line in the ledger stating that you own it (and who sold it to you). Whether you can enforce copyright through the courts, is very separate issue, and not NFT function.
It’s as valid as me saying because I am linking the url below, I must own it: https://google.com
NFT has no implication that the url being linked is owned in any way.
It’s just a url just like I posted in this comment. If I own it or not is irrelevant. There’s no proof of actual copyright ownership anywhere involved with NFTs and requires a legal document for copyright, which they don’t have.
NFT is a record of agreement, that one side acquired something from another. It is as powerful as agreement wrote on paper. So, it might be enforced by court, depending on situation.
most of it is AI generated so no one can copyright enforce it, lol.
Legal Eagle has a good video on it, copyright only applies to humans. There was a case where a monkey took a photo with a photographers camera and he lost the copyright case because a monkey holds no copyright.
Some NFT contracts do include image rights. You can write your own contract into the token, so an NFT can be whatever you want it to be.
I’m not defending them, it’s just wrong to say you can’t get image rights with an NFT when people are writing their own contracts into NFTs all the time.
You sound knowledgeable. Can you describe a scenario where NFTs are useful? I have heard about tokens for work over a decentralized network but I don’t fully understand what that means.
That is, there can be scenarios where they are useful as “You cannot trivially recreate this hash code” systems, but… we can already do that without the massive overhead of a blockchain and the PITA of keeping a ledger in check.
Or, as always: There is no application for NFTs which cannot be done faster, easier and better by just using a completely normal database.
and if you want the immutability of the blockchain (which is not a good design btw, what if fraud or mistake happens that needs correcting?), you can literally just use a insert-only database, meaning no updates.
It’s not. Think of them as receipts, transferable proof of purchase, on a globally accessible digital ledger. Their use and value is only in the systems that are built up around them, not the NFT itself.
But real systems are unlikely to be built up without government support and backing or significant corporate investment, and those take money and time.
Depending on the object, the ticket and the jurisdiction, the ticket has some actual legal meaning. An NFT does not. If you bought ape #165345234 as an NFT and someone copies it, they’re free to do that and there’s fuck all you can do about it. In fact they could even change the owner of the NFT by forking the blockchain, and there’s fuck all you can do about that though luckily in that scenario it’s quite unlikely they they’ll end up being the fork that is adopted by the majority.
But say if the biggest players in a specific blockchain, especially a proof of stake one (and proof of work is shit anyways so let’s say “all usable blockchains”), do not like you owning NFT #XYZ, they can undo that. And again, you got no recourse.
What you’d need is a central authority that mediates conflicts and enforces a set of rules. Specifically thing most people do not want in the DeFi universe, but the absence of which is also why a physical - or even digital - normal ticket or receipt is so much more useful, and why DeFi is just grifter’s heaven and very little else. It lacks the very abhorred but utterly required central authority.
Such markets already exists. Blockchain does something other tech already does, blockchain just does it much more inefficient and unreliable. This is why you only see pyramid schemes as real life applications of blockchain. Noone has been able to come up with other usages than those.
Nft has nothing to do with art… It just how it was perceived and abused by communities, companies, etc. The importance of nft is that it is proof of ownership to a particular thing whether it’s real or digital. Don’t hate it cause of the stupidity of pixelated pictures which took over this erc token variant.
They sound like the same people who have been telling us crypto is going to become the currency of the future and solve all the problems we have with banks, Wall Street and the government. Yet here we are and the biggest real world use for crypto is criminal activity.
NFT is not ART. It is digital ledger that says that the art belongs to someone (you, for example). The art itself can be freely copied. NFTs are not copyright enforcement.
There is no art involved. A file is way too big to be stored in the ledger. They just point to a url which is very much mutable, can go down, or change to whatever the fuck at any given time.
If I was a cyberghost, I’d use my cyberpowers to make all NFT’s point to dickbutt.
Like pure poetry
This comment is so obviously troll
No, it’s absolutely correct, as explained by ethereum’s tutorial on how to mint an NFT.
Yes. But you don’t own the art or the right to it, just the token leading to it. You literally don’t have the rights to the image so you cant copyright enforce it.
All you have is a line in the ledger stating that you own it (and who sold it to you). Whether you can enforce copyright through the courts, is very separate issue, and not NFT function.
I would pay to sit in on a court hearing where a lawyer is trying to explain blockchains, NFTs, and “smart contracts” to a 70 year old judge.
It’s as valid as me saying because I am linking the url below, I must own it: https://google.com NFT has no implication that the url being linked is owned in any way.
It’s just a url just like I posted in this comment. If I own it or not is irrelevant. There’s no proof of actual copyright ownership anywhere involved with NFTs and requires a legal document for copyright, which they don’t have.
NFT is a record of agreement, that one side acquired something from another. It is as powerful as agreement wrote on paper. So, it might be enforced by court, depending on situation.
most of it is AI generated so no one can copyright enforce it, lol.
Legal Eagle has a good video on it, copyright only applies to humans. There was a case where a monkey took a photo with a photographers camera and he lost the copyright case because a monkey holds no copyright.
That and a NFT is not the copyright. Remember the Dune thing?
Some NFT contracts do include image rights. You can write your own contract into the token, so an NFT can be whatever you want it to be.
I’m not defending them, it’s just wrong to say you can’t get image rights with an NFT when people are writing their own contracts into NFTs all the time.
Not the art. The token. The ledger only says that the token belongs to someone.
You sound knowledgeable. Can you describe a scenario where NFTs are useful? I have heard about tokens for work over a decentralized network but I don’t fully understand what that means.
Hrm… not really, no.
That is, there can be scenarios where they are useful as “You cannot trivially recreate this hash code” systems, but… we can already do that without the massive overhead of a blockchain and the PITA of keeping a ledger in check.
Or, as always: There is no application for NFTs which cannot be done faster, easier and better by just using a completely normal database.
and if you want the immutability of the blockchain (which is not a good design btw, what if fraud or mistake happens that needs correcting?), you can literally just use a insert-only database, meaning no updates.
I guess it could enable markets for used non-physical copies of videogames, reselling of tickets, stuff like that.
I don’t understand. How it different from reselling a physical copy of ticket?
It’s not. Think of them as receipts, transferable proof of purchase, on a globally accessible digital ledger. Their use and value is only in the systems that are built up around them, not the NFT itself.
But real systems are unlikely to be built up without government support and backing or significant corporate investment, and those take money and time.
Depending on the object, the ticket and the jurisdiction, the ticket has some actual legal meaning. An NFT does not. If you bought ape #165345234 as an NFT and someone copies it, they’re free to do that and there’s fuck all you can do about it. In fact they could even change the owner of the NFT by forking the blockchain, and there’s fuck all you can do about that though luckily in that scenario it’s quite unlikely they they’ll end up being the fork that is adopted by the majority.
But say if the biggest players in a specific blockchain, especially a proof of stake one (and proof of work is shit anyways so let’s say “all usable blockchains”), do not like you owning NFT #XYZ, they can undo that. And again, you got no recourse.
What you’d need is a central authority that mediates conflicts and enforces a set of rules. Specifically thing most people do not want in the DeFi universe, but the absence of which is also why a physical - or even digital - normal ticket or receipt is so much more useful, and why DeFi is just grifter’s heaven and very little else. It lacks the very abhorred but utterly required central authority.
Well, I was talking of digital stuff. Of course for physical things it doesn’t apply.
Such markets already exists. Blockchain does something other tech already does, blockchain just does it much more inefficient and unreliable. This is why you only see pyramid schemes as real life applications of blockchain. Noone has been able to come up with other usages than those.
Do they?
Who’s Noone? Never heard of him, but he sounds like a smart guy. (couldn’t resist, sorry)
Nft has nothing to do with art… It just how it was perceived and abused by communities, companies, etc. The importance of nft is that it is proof of ownership to a particular thing whether it’s real or digital. Don’t hate it cause of the stupidity of pixelated pictures which took over this erc token variant.
NFT is stupid no matter how you put it, it has no use case.
Have you studied what is it, how it works, why it was introduced, what problems does it solve? I doubt… But you are entitled to think what you want.
pray do tell what problems it solves, you must have studied so much, you must have examples ready to go.
They sound like the same people who have been telling us crypto is going to become the currency of the future and solve all the problems we have with banks, Wall Street and the government. Yet here we are and the biggest real world use for crypto is criminal activity.
If it can be “freely copied” with a literally identical one, it has literally zero value.
That’s simpy not true. Blockchain eats up electricity so it has negative value.