Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I guess I'm just a boomer now. Does purchasing NFTs of art have any benefit to the owner outside of claiming they "own" something that is infinitely reproducible? Do NFT owners hold a copyright on the image?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Copyright and the exclusive right to monetize them for commercial purposes, supposedly. I don't think anyone has been sued over saving and using someone else's NFT for profit yet though.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

most NFTs (bought from the more famous websites) don't come with the copyright, they usually get permission to use, resell but not to actually own it

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can different sites create NFTs from the exact same thing?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

at that point you have to start actually thinking about the block-chain and some complicated stuff, but, yes

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yes, with no complications actually.

t. someone who actually researched crypto

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

does every site have their own independent block-chain?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No, most of them use big blockchains like Ethereum. But since NFTs are just links within a block, anyone could mint a token with the same image within the same block, and no one would have the authority to invalidate it.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It all sounds so worthless. Without an institution with authority backing validity and rights of the token what is even the point?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the two sites generating an NFT from the same problem is very specific, and although a problem like that would have to be settled on court, NFTs ideal use are as a form of donation to an artist and that doesn't require an "authority backing validity" besides the artist themselves

but that's too complicated, zoomers will just use NFTs to buy pictures of monkeys

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah that's pretty cucked. I wouldn't even consider getting one if it didn't come with legal rights attached. Maybe its all just 2deep4me

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

it was meant to be come with the legal rights (they would be pretty useful if that were the case) but then zoomers started buying NFTs with no rights attached and that lead to The Market™ doing its thing. if you can sell something without selling it, who wouldn't do it

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So literally standard fare intellectual property rights but more legally dubious. And if you want to enforce your “”right”” you still have to go to a real court like a chump. Congratulations tech bros, you’re rediscovering IP law.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

... claiming they "own" something that is infinitely reproducible? Do NFT owners hold a copyright on the image?

The data is reproducable, but the token associated with it isn't. That system is designed to prevent double-spending. The image is really just there to give some personal meaning to the token in the same way that a CSGO skin's texture gives meaning to the "item" which is really just a database entry, even though you can just copy the texture yourself or make a CSGO server that lets you play with the skins. Do the owners hold copyright on the image? Probably not unless the creator of the image licenses it like that, but It doesn't really matter. It's like trading cards or CSGO skins.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is an automated message.

We detected that you used the word "CSGO" three times in your post. This indicates you're a fricking loser and need to touch grass. Please do so at your earliest convenience.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I feel like a digital good on a centralized server makes more sense though cause they can enforce it on official servers. Probably a non-zero amount of people feel like buying them to support the F2P game too - like reddit gold.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The only NFTs I’ve seen that have any practical use outside of crypto gaming ponzis are ENS addresses that allow me to take payments as Suprememe.eth instead of an unambiguous string of hexadecimal.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

so like a namecoin type thing?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yep. ENS took a good chunk of Namecoin’s model and found a bunch of success with it because Ethereum’s popularity lead to integration across almost all modern wallets. I think you can even set up ENS addresses to resolve like a DNS address through a few select browsers such as Brave.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm not really a big fan of the namecoin model to be honest. Either you can get your domain stolen by someone with more money/PoW, or you can squat domains forever. You sort of need some level of beurocracy to prevent that, even if you have a petname system like GNS. It's a human problem fundamentally.

Also you can sort of "mine" for "good" public keys already. For example with tor onion addresses, the facebooks is facebookwkhpilnemxj7asaniu7vnjjbiltxjqhye3mhbshg7kx5tfyd.onion.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That's where ENS differs. There's no risk of getting your domain stolen through 51% attacks, there's a governance model to handle bureaucratic management, you have to renew registration on your domains, and registration costs scale with the length of the domain so squatters weren't able to cheaply scoop up all the names under 5 character length.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Isnt that how every artpiece works?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If you own the Mona Lisa, you own a physical object with a specific history. The paint was applied by a great master, and every brush stroke is his. You can move it where you want, or even destroy it. The distinction between the Mona Lisa and a reproduction or artistic copy may be minor to an average person, but no one could argue it's literally the same. At very least it's an interesting and unique curiosity.

Digital art was created on a computer and stays on computers. You can have infinite copies of the original file that are all indistinguishable at an absolute level, there is no such thing as an original. So the only unique aspect would be the creator's statement that you own the reproducible image, which seems to impart ambiguous rights, or none at all.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.