|
salt shakeup posted:NFT is a certificate of ownership and authenticity, that's it. You're misreading the auction page. "Please note that you may elect to make payment of the purchase price for this lot in the cryptocurrency Ether."
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
ymgve posted:You're misreading the auction page. "Please note that you may elect to make payment of the purchase price for this lot in the cryptocurrency Ether." Oops my bad - though I did read that it was purchased with Ethereum in this case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:12
|
|
|
Serious;y though it looks like a lot of artists had their work stolen to make that. There's going to be a lot of upset people when they find out what beeple got paid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:14
|
|
|
Hillary 2020 posted:Serious;y though it looks like a lot of artists had their work stolen to make that. There's going to be a lot of upset people when they find out what beeple got paid. nah, beeple seems to have made them all himself, dude seems to be some kind of weird art producing machine though he seems to use quite a few copyrighted characters so disney might have something to say about it
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:15
|
|
|
salt shakeup posted:NFT is a certificate of ownership and authenticity, that's it. It's a certificate in that there is something recorded somewhere, yes. But there is no assurance that the ownership chain leads to anyone who ever had legitimate claim to the object, that the certificate points to something that actually exists, or that another certificate does not also point to the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:17
|
|
|
ymgve posted:nah, beeple seems to have made them all himself, dude seems to be some kind of weird art producing machine yeah, dude's been cranking out art every single day for over 13 years, which is pretty insane
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:20
|
|
|
the NFT metadata still haven't changed ownership from beeple btw, though it's a bit understandable with an auction house doing the sale https://opensea.io/assets/0x2a46f2ffd99e19a89476e2f62270e0a35bbf0756/40913 also this link at christies does a good job of introducing the dude https://www.christies.com/features/Monumental-collage-by-Beeple-is-first-purely-digital-artwork-NFT-to-come-to-auction-11510-7.aspx
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:22
|
|
|
Just download the jpeg for free, lmao.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:24
|
|
|
There is a Burger King logo like around the middle How? Why? gently caress it burn this Earth
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:25
|
|
|
Tiberius Christ posted:Current gas price for ethereum is about $130, thats just to mint a new NFT contract, I can see this being useful for actual artwork not the heaps of slag their loading onto the block chain right now Why would it be useful for "actual artwork" at all. It's fundamentally just a hash value of something stored somewhere else, but on the blockchain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:25
|
|
|
ymgve posted:
Don't worry he's got 69mil to pay for all the incoming lawsuits, but seriously he's not in a good spot with that amount of copyright infringement and publicity. The only thing dumber than announcing you just got 70mil is to announce you just got 70mil in a maybe not legal way. Flannelette fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Mar 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:27
|
|
|
orange juche posted:let me know when you turn bullshit internet pogs into something you can actually buy food/housing with i dont give a poo poo about crypto I'm here to multiply my usable fiat. which i just converted all my gains back into in seconds. hth
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:30
|
|
|
ymgve posted:nah, beeple seems to have made them all himself, dude seems to be some kind of weird art producing machine I wonder if he could argue he didn't sell the art, just a token on the ETH network  Somfin posted:It's a certificate in that there is something recorded somewhere, yes. But there is no assurance that the ownership chain leads to anyone who ever had legitimate claim to the object, that the certificate points to something that actually exists, or that another certificate does not also point to the same thing. You can easily prove you have the private key and own that particular token, and you can easily check that the object exists too. That's a good point about making a duplicate token pointing to the same object, but again it's easily to check which is the authentic token on the hosting website. Paladinus posted:Just download the jpeg for free, lmao.  you're going to jail now
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:34
|
|
|
salt shakeup posted:NFT is a certificate of ownership and authenticity, that's it. An NFT is not a certificate of ownership and authenticity at all. Just because you bought an NFT of something doesn't mean you actually own the artwork linked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:34
|
|
|
Still trying to wrap my head around how we got here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwNdER3XIAU2NFh?format=jpg&name=medium Is this it, is capitalism finally imploding?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:35
|
|
|
salt shakeup posted:You can easily prove you have the private key and own that particular token, and you can easily check that the object exists too. That's a good point about making a duplicate token pointing to the same object, but again it's easily to check which is the authentic token on the hosting website. "Owning" some token with an URL means nothing to the legal system at all. And a duplicate NFT linking the same URL is just as legit as the first one, there's literally no difference but trust in the issuing authority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:36
|
|
|
This is my newest favorite money laundering scheme
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:40
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:And a duplicate NFT The one thing that NFT does, is it should be impossible for 2 of the same token to exist. Thinking back to my naive days where I thought people making 10x a teacher's wage by watching and commentating on people watching games on youtube was the low point of humanity. Now you have people doing market analysis and moving massive volume of "I own this" cards for meme pics. Flannelette fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Mar 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:40
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:An NFT is not a certificate of ownership and authenticity at all. Just because you bought an NFT of something doesn't mean you actually own the artwork linked. Hard disagree, that's literally what a NFT is. Whether you think it's valid or not is up to you, but someone just valued one at $69 million dollars. Fame Douglas posted:"Owning" some token with an URL means nothing to the legal system at all. And a duplicate NFT linking the same URL is just as legit as the first one, there's literally no difference but trust in the issuing authority. Currently yeah it means nothing, so I'm curious what would happen if they did get sued, it would set the precedent. Well if the duplicate NFT is not linked as the official token on the issuing authority, it's not legit at all... On a side note, I didn't know this was a thing - multiple editions of the same artwork - https://makersplace.com/marblemannequin/volatile-gold-26-of-50-53043/ I suppose it's like selling a limited number of prints 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:41
|
|
|
Flannelette posted:The one thing that NFT does, is it should be impossible for 2 of the same token to exist. No, you can put the same hash value and URL on the Ethereum blockchain as many times as you like. An NFT doesn't prevent anything. salt shakeup posted:Hard disagree, that's literally what a NFT is. Whether you think it's valid or not is up to you, but someone just valued one at $69 million dollars. You seem to not know anything about anything. Copyright law doesn't care about NFTs, without some additional contract, buying a hash value don't provide anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:43
|
|
|
Flannelette posted:The one thing that NFT does, is it should be impossible for 2 of the same token to exist. On the same contract probably, but there are like dozens (hundreds?) of different NFT contracts to pick from and I guarantee there are no checking between them
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:44
|
|
|
salt shakeup posted:Hard disagree, that's literally what a NFT is. Whether you think it's valid or not is up to you, but someone just valued one at $69 million dollars. So does it mean you own it, or don't own it? Please clarify your answer for the class.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:46
|
|
|
So what's the point of calling it non fungible if I can funge it? What if I just put that same hash/url of the 70mil pic straight back up for auction myself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:49
|
|
|
ymgve posted:On the same contract probably, but there are like dozens (hundreds?) of different NFT contracts to pick from and I guarantee there are no checking between them The only prerequisite for executing a smart contract on the Ethereum blockchain is providing the required amount of gas. You can launch your own NFT right now and claim to be the issuing authority for SA posts. Doesn't mean you can actually transfer any rights, but according to salt shakepup, that's just a small technicality the courts will surely rectify, going against all existing copyright.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:50
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:No, you can put the same hash value and URL on the Ethereum blockchain as many times as you like. An NFT doesn't prevent anything. Yeah but if you go to the official website for the art and your token isn't listed, it's a bogus token. Fame Douglas posted:You seem to not know anything about anything. Copyright law doesn't care about NFTs, without some additional contract, buying a hash value don't provide anything. orange juche posted:So does it mean you own it, or don't own it? Please clarify your answer for the class. You own the token, you own the artwork. It's a certificate of ownership and authenticity. R>C>P please. Fame Douglas posted:The only prerequisite for executing a smart contract on the Ethereum blockchain is providing the required amount of gas. You can launch your own NFT right now and claim to be the issuing authority for SA posts. Doesn't mean you can actually transfer any rights, but according to salt shakepup, that's just a small technicality the courts will surely rectify, going against all existing copyright. Hey the wires got crossed on this one, I was talking about copyright in relation to another comment about the beeple artwork featuring Disney characters. But that is a good point, would the courts protect duplicate NFTs, or are they just worthless because they're not official. I have no idea, there's no precedent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:51
|
|
|
salt shakeup posted:Yeah but if you go to the official website for the art and your token isn't listed, it's a bogus token. What is the "official website for the art"? And even if it were listed on the "official website for the art", that doesn't imply you bought full ownership of the art at all? You'd have to check the original contract. Maybe the artists just wanted to transfer rights for personal reproduction, but nothing else. And what type of usage rights are included with the token, especially in countries where you can't transfer ownership of copyrighted material, just usage rights? Full usage?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:53
|
|
|
salt shakeup posted:Yeah but if you go to the official website for the art and your token isn't listed, it's a bogus token. Ah yes just check with the official website, no way to fake that and nothing ever happens to web sites they are like impenetrable vaults.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:54
|
|
|
salt shakeup posted:Hey the wires got crossed on this one, I was talking about copyright in relation to another comment about the beeple artwork featuring Disney characters. But that is a good point, would the courts protect duplicate NFTs, or are they just worthless because they're not official. I have no idea, there's no precedent. There's plenty of precedent, you can't transfer more rights than you yourself have. NFTs are dumb scams to get rubes to buy links to jpegs that are meaningless without a detailed legal contract.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:56
|
|
|
salt shakeup posted:You own the token, you own the artwork. It's a certificate of ownership and authenticity. R>C>P please. so what happens when someone comes along and NFTs your artwork, or tweet, or what the gently caress ever, without asking you? Do they now own your artwork? Are they required to pay you royalties since they just sold your artwork? Copyright protections would side with the original artist if you're going by history, but you are claiming that the NEW PARADIGM of nft's means that whoever funge's it first is the owner of the artwork (even if they're not!)
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 03:57
|
|
|
star citizen jpegs, but with blockchain
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 04:08
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:The only prerequisite for executing a smart contract on the Ethereum blockchain is providing the required amount of gas. You can launch your own NFT right now and claim to be the issuing authority for SA posts. Doesn't mean you can actually transfer any rights, but according to salt shakepup, that's just a small technicality the courts will surely rectify, going against all existing copyright. yeah, but I assume the code in the smart contract is smart enough to check if a specific URL is not already in its own database (this is not given since ethereum code is unchangeable once it's published to the blockchain and therefore full of bugs) but there is nothing that stops you from taking the code of the smart contract, creating a new contract with the same contract code, and adding the same media into that contract's database or uploading the media to a different URL and pushing that to the database, which would work because the ethereum blockchain has no way of interacting with anything outside itself so it can't actually see the content of an URL
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 04:13
|
|
|
Please visit the official art website: https://www.officialart.wordpress.com/art.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 04:15
|
|
|
ymgve posted:yeah, but I assume the code in the smart contract is smart enough to check if a specific URL is not already in its own database (this is not given since ethereum code is unchangeable once it's published to the blockchain and therefore full of bugs) Pro tip, you can add like a question mark at the end of an URL or use some URL shortener to produce a URL that would resolve to the same asset, and mint another token for the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 04:18
|
|
|
You wouldn’t download a dollar. DONT RUN CRYPTO SCAMS
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 04:22
|
|
|
had anyone said
yet
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 04:22
|
|
|
Just lol at someone seriously thinking a court will evaluate a blockchain and set PRECEDENT!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 04:26
|
|
|
Does anyone think judges are that smart? Lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 04:28
|
|
|
Judges don't evaluate technology, expert witness do. But the expert witness on blockchain isn't going to matter when common law is applied to the property. Blockchain doesn't prove a transaction occurred. IOW, people who own things have a right to sell them without an obligation to record the transaction on the blockchain. Even if they bought it with the blockchain. Andy Dufresne fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Mar 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 04:31
|
|
|
salt shakeup posted:Yeah but if you go to the official website for the art and your token isn't listed, it's a bogus token. This entire post is impressively wrong
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
ymgve posted:yeah, but I assume the code in the smart contract is smart enough to check if a specific URL is not already in its own database (this is not given since ethereum code is unchangeable once it's published to the blockchain and therefore full of bugs) And since it's there's no regulation or actual change of ownership there is no reason the origonal artist can't just sell his art again and say the first sale doesn't count and move the art to a new URL while keeping the money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 05:19
|
|