PigLick on 15/4/2021 at 03:26
one could argue that it gives the artist much more control over their work, but I still cant really get my head around it. Why not just commission one off artworks and sell those, where the buyer would genuinely have a unique piece, rather than the whole block chain malarkey.
Essentially its really just a big old casino, where you take a gamble that buying an NFT now will reap you profit in the future.
Pyrian on 15/4/2021 at 04:50
Quote Posted by heywood
And there's nothing to stop anyone else from selling it either.
...
If an artist "sells" their work through an NFT but retains copyright, how can they be ripped off?
How do you not see the problem you clearly stated?
heywood on 15/4/2021 at 10:56
I really don't see it. Care to explain?
faetal on 16/4/2021 at 08:55
If there's nothing to stop others from selling it, retaining copyright is meaningless.
Starker on 16/4/2021 at 08:55
Quote Posted by Pyrian
I feel that Crypto-currency has at least
some underlying utility (beyond the pyramid scheme of investing money into taking other, later investors' money). That utility is money laundering, but illegal and/or immoral utility is utility nonetheless. Whereas NFT's are a glorified link that would have to have some sort of legal backing to mean anything resembling ownership of a linked artwork. So, as is, NFT is
just the pyramid, and that's bad.
Um... I don't know it for a fact, but I'm pretty sure NFT is also used for money laundering.
heywood on 16/4/2021 at 13:08
Quote Posted by faetal
If there's nothing to stop others from selling it, retaining copyright is meaningless.
If you're not transferring copyright, what are you selling? The answer is just a meaningless blockchain record.
With digital artwork, you can own the copyright. The copyright is an asset with intrinsic value. You can license it and make money. That's the business model of Getty Images. You can also obtain a license from the copyright holder to use or reproduce the artwork. That could be an asset with intrinsic value, if the license terms are restrictive. What else is there to own?
The existence of a record on a blockchain that says person A sold X to person B doesn't rip anyone off if X has no intrinsic value. If you could find a foolish buyer, there's nothing to stop you from selling an NFT that claims to represent ownership of my house. Have you ripped me off? Nope. The deed is still in my name.
Quote Posted by Starker
Um... I don't know it for a fact, but I'm pretty sure NFT is also used for money laundering.
I'm going to speculate wildly and say that I think there is probably an ulterior motive behind most of the NFT sales that involve big money for tokens of questionable value.