NFTs - digital art or something.

[Artaxerxes]

Oh ffs

Indulgences are back baby

 

[Storm Fox]

You mean like opinions? I believe I read them at the time.

Apart from:

• Daily hack, scams, grifts and bad business practices, Web3 Is Going Just Great
• Attribution of dead artists work An artist died. Then thieves made NFTs of her work
• Copyright theft ‘Huge mess of theft and fraud:’ artists sound alarm as NFT crime proliferates
• You don't actually own the work for the NFT, only the link in the blockchain in most cases.

And BTW what makes your opinions more authoritative than anyone else on here?

 

[cybershot]

Urgh. Fuck off. (can't find a non paywall version)

Explained: Liverpool's £8.5m NFT sale and why people view it as controversial

Liverpool announced an NFT (non-fungible token) deal on Thursday. The Athletic has taken a look at what that means

theathletic.com

 

[gosub]

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Urgh. Fuck off. (can't find a non paywall version)

Explained: Liverpool's £8.5m NFT sale and why people view it as controversial

Liverpool announced an NFT (non-fungible token) deal on Thursday. The Athletic has taken a look at what that means

theathletic.com

Meh. Fools and their money.

It's like really expensive collectable cards for adults.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Apart from:

• Daily hack, scams, grifts and bad business practices, Web3 Is Going Just Great
• Attribution of dead artists work An artist died. Then thieves made NFTs of her work
• Copyright theft ‘Huge mess of theft and fraud:’ artists sound alarm as NFT crime proliferates
• You don't actually own the work for the NFT, only the link in the blockchain in most cases.

And BTW what makes your opinions more authoritative than anyone else on here?

Before I answer, can you point to where I said what you're claiming I said?

 

[Storm Fox]

Before I answer, can you point to where I said what you're claiming I said?

I don’t see much wrong with NFTs, aside from the debate about intellectual property rights. It’s no different than music ownership with music also being a product which has no physical form. Why this happening to digital art is causing some kind of storm is perplexing tbh.

We here you are dismissing the issues with NFTs raised up thread which I have give a few referenced examples.

Perhaps there is some content earlier in the thread that might be useful?

You mean like opinions? I believe I read them at the time.

And here you seem to be scoffing at other people's opinions [third quote] without giving referenced sources of your own why your position is correct [second quote] .
Of course this being a text based form of communication I may have missed the subtlety and nuisance of your posts. If my understanding of your points are wrong would you mind clarifying them?

So now, as requested, I have answered you request, can you supply some references for your opinions?

 

[hitmouse]

I still can't believe that's real, but it is apparently an actual thing.

Through the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14–30, Jesus instructs us to invest our resources and time wisely and in a way that benefits The Kingdom of God. Jesus softened my heart to lift my prayer to Him permanently on the blockchain with Eternal Prayers. My heart takes solace that my prayers will live on until Judgement Day when we can be reunited in Heaven as one flock. —John T, Tennessee

 

[Magnus McGinty]

We here you are dismissing the issues with NFTs raised up thread which I have give a few referenced examples.


And here you seem to be scoffing at other people's opinions [third quote] without giving referenced sources of your own why your position is correct [second quote] .
Of course this being a text based form of communication I may have missed the subtlety and nuisance of your posts. If my understanding of your points are wrong would you mind clarifying them?

So now, as requested, I have answered you request, can you supply some references for your opinions?

This isn't a hill I want to die on, so I can't be arsed putting forward researched opinions and the such so will concede.
I haven't got the time to even read back through the thread but my initial thought about us disagreeing is about you're coming from the angle of people BUYING digital art where I was coming from the angle of people SELLING digital art.
And coming from the latter, I think it's a good thing. But I'm willing to accept it's dodgy for the former.

 

[NoXion]

This isn't a hill I want to die on, so I can't be arsed putting forward researched opinions and the such so will concede.
I haven't got the time to even read back through the thread but my initial thought about us disagreeing is about you're coming from the angle of people BUYING digital art where I was coming from the angle of people SELLING digital art.
And coming from the latter, I think it's a good thing. But I'm willing to accept it's dodgy for the former.

The thing about art and NFTs is that when you buy an NFT, you're not actually buying any kind of rights or exclusivity to the artwork associated with it. What you're buying is just the NFT itself, the only functional connection it has to the artwork is a line of code written somewhere within the NFT which can point towards an external host of an image file. The artworks cannot be stored or written into the NFT itself, because incorporating that amount of data would slow down the entire blockchain that the NFT is part of, which would make transactions etc even more slower than they already are.

As you may be able to imagine, this means that scammers can easily create NFTs associated with artworks that they have no legal or moral right to make money off of.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

The thing about art and NFTs is that when you buy an NFT, you're not actually buying any kind of rights or exclusivity to the artwork associated with it. What you're buying is just the NFT itself, the only functional connection it has to the artwork is a line of code written somewhere within the NFT which can point towards an external host of an image file. The artworks cannot be stored or written into the NFT itself, because incorporating that amount of data would slow down the entire blockchain that the NFT is part of, which would make transactions etc even more slower than they already are.

As you may be able to imagine, this means that scammers can easily create NFTs associated with artworks that they have no legal or moral right to make money off of.

As far as I know that isn't that much of an issue for what it is trying to do.

Art is often used as a money dump.
Intead of getting taxed you buy a painting and it is stored in a vault somewhere. When you want money again you sell the painting.
The painting never leaves the vault.
There is speculation that art got combined with block chain suspiciously close to the time art dealership got hit with anti fraud and money laundering laws.
NFTs are being sold as being that same money dump.

This other 2 hour long youtube video goes into it.



Round the 30min mark i think.

 

[NoXion]

As far as I know that isn't that much of an issue for what it is trying to do.

Art is often used as a money dump.
Intead of getting taxed you buy a painting and it is stored in a vault somewhere. When you want money again you sell the painting.
The painting never leaves the vault.
There is speculation that art got combined with block chain suspiciously close to the time art dealership got hit with anti fraud and money laundering laws.
NFTs are being sold as being that same money dump.

This other 2 hour long youtube video goes into it.



Round the 30min mark i think.

That's just it, the whole NFT/crypto thing is such a massive continent of scams, deceit, and WTF. Just like continents it's fractal too; you can zoom in on any part of it and be certain to find a particular peninsula of stupidity or graft. That's why there are not one but two (possibly more) multi-hour YouTube videos on the sorry subject. I'm pretty sure that there's at least enough potential material for an entire documentary series.

The aforementioned videos are entertaining and informative, but clearly not everyone can appreciate them. What I was trying to do with that post was to pick out for Magnus McGinty just one little facet of the entire shit-diamond that is the crypto/NFT nonsense.

 

[pbsmooth]

pretty sure there's more than two!

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Welcome to the future

It's turtles* all the way down.


*insert latest insanity here

 

[Magnus McGinty]

The thing about art and NFTs is that when you buy an NFT, you're not actually buying any kind of rights or exclusivity to the artwork associated with it. What you're buying is just the NFT itself, the only functional connection it has to the artwork is a line of code written somewhere within the NFT which can point towards an external host of an image file. The artworks cannot be stored or written into the NFT itself, because incorporating that amount of data would slow down the entire blockchain that the NFT is part of, which would make transactions etc even more slower than they already are.

As you may be able to imagine, this means that scammers can easily create NFTs associated with artworks that they have no legal or moral right to make money off of.

Fair enough mate. Which does raise the question though as to why someone paid almost $70M for Beeple’s First 5,000 Days. That is serious money and lends it an air of being official. I only know this as I follow Beeple as a 3D artist I’m interested in. Otherwise I’d probably be unaware of NFTs.

 

[NoXion]

Fair enough mate. Which does raise the question though as to why someone paid almost $70M for Beeple’s First 5,000 Days. That is serious money and lends it an air of being official. I only know this as I follow Beeple as a 3D artist I’m interested in. Otherwise I’d probably be unaware of NFTs.

I imagine that for the artists such as Beeple who actually make the decision to get themselves involved with NFTs, it's mostly another way that they can monetise their work, which I reckon is fair enough in and of itself. If it's an official NFT issued by a big-name artist, then it commanding a huge sum at auction doesn't seem that terribly unlikely to me. But I would agree that the sheer size of the amount raises questions, given the fundamental nature of the product offered. I don't think I'm too familiar with Beeple's work, but from what I've seen of it I certainly think there's talent there. But tens of millions of dollars is vastly inflated.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I imagine that for the artists such as Beeple who actually make the decision to get themselves involved with NFTs, it's mostly another way that they can monetise their work, which I reckon is fair enough in and of itself. If it's an official NFT issued by a big-name artist, then it commanding a huge sum at auction doesn't seem that terribly unlikely to me. But I would agree that the sheer size of the amount raises questions, given the fundamental nature of the product offered. I don't think I'm too familiar with Beeple's work, but from what I've seen of it I certainly think there's talent there. But tens of millions of dollars is vastly inflated.

It’s possible that a large stake was inputted so as to raise the profile / value of NFTs. We don’t know as we don’t know who the buyer is or their intentions for the art.
It isn’t that The First 5000 Days isn’t an insignificant piece of work though; Beeple literally made a piece of art every day for 5000 days and all those pieces sold together. Whether or not you like the art or not the volume as one piece is unmatched (as a sale).

 

[Artaxerxes]

The art is frequently stolen and often AI generated - bored ape being a prime example of the algorithm derived cut and paste shite NFTs are tied to.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I’m sure there’s lots of shit being sold. But on the flip side some extremely talented digital artists saw it as a watershed in being accepted as a ‘proper’ artist where as previously they’d just be absorbed into being CGI artists in a bigger machine.

 

[pbsmooth]

Any true artist wouldn't see money as validation

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Any true artist wouldn't see money as validation

I often hear this trotted out. Almost as if they have different needs to everybody else.

 

[NoXion]

It’s possible that a large stake was inputted so as to raise the profile / value of NFTs. We don’t know as we don’t know who the buyer is or their intentions for the art.
It isn’t that The First 5000 Days isn’t an insignificant piece of work though; Beeple literally made a piece of art every day for 5000 days and all those pieces sold together. Whether or not you like the art or not the volume as one piece is unmatched (as a sale).

But was it just the NFTs that were sold, or were the artworks themselves and/or the rights to them included as part of the package? If it's the former then the price paid was definitely inflated beyond reason.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

But was it just the NFTs that were sold, or were the artworks themselves and/or the rights to them included as part of the package? If it's the former then the price paid was definitely inflated beyond reason.

I assumed the point of an NFT, and it certainly is the case with the Beeple sale, that it gives the buyer the ownership/rights of something that doesn’t have a physical form. I’m not sure I understand why else someone would buy an NFT? What is the context for what you are saying?

 

[NoXion]

I assumed the point of an NFT, and it certainly is the case with the Beeple sale, that it gives the buyer the ownership/rights of something that doesn’t have a physical form. I’m not sure I understand why else someone would buy an NFT? What is the context for what you are saying?

What kind of context are you looking for? There's nothing inherent to NFTs which grants copyrights. The copyright holder has to sell a licence along with the NFT. The copyright licence can be written into the NFT being sold for sure, but you can also sell copyright licences without NFTs, so what exactly do they add to the process? The legal and financial framework for the sale and transfer of copyright already exists.

I think the reasons for why NFTs have attracted so much capital are varied, but few of them are good. Money laundering, rich idiots, and a target-rich new environment for scammers and pyramid schemers among others. I think it's a mistake to look at the size of the sums involved and on that basis put any more weight on the notion that it somehow isn't a folly.

 

[pbsmooth]

I often hear this trotted out. Almost as if they have different needs to everybody else.

you're assuming everyone has a right to earn a living from being an artist. I wish that were true but it never has been.

 

[magneze]

Here's a summary of what the firm says are Web3's visions, and realities:

• Decentralization Impossible to achieve, as shown by current crypto projects centering around certain (usually large) actors;
• Trust in code, not companies: the belief that a community’s smart contracts encode and enforce its rules We should all trust unknown developers why, exactly?
• Always using open and transparent code Doesn't stop monopolies forming, and relies on a small pool of people capable of assessing code;
• Crypto-economic principles designed so that systems benefit all participants Favour the wealthy and grow monopolies;
• Users own and control the data and content they create Concept of 'ownership' is vague and most users are not willing or able to make constant decisions about their data;
• Users manage their own identity and credentials Not many will bother, partly because it is hard;
• Users control the apps and networks they use Forrester can't see that happening beyond a few tech-savvy types, and suggests that the fractious nature of many online communities could re-emerge as schisms among those who run the apps and networks people have trusted to do stuff like manage their finances. This is the dystopian scenario in the document's title;
• Decentralized autonomous organizations, entities that exist as a collection of smart contracts Have no legal basis and work on a utopian assumption that all possibilities can be coded;
• Decentralized finance (DeFi) Nice idea, shame it lacks consumer protection, while risk management requires the code inspection that few can perform.

The document also warns that Web3 is currently "dominated by speculators in cryptocurrencies and other digital assets like NFTs; it's an unregulated environment in which the actions of scammers and fraudsters derail the best of intentions."

Web3 'contains the seeds of a dystopian nightmare'

Forrester Research is DeFi-ing current hype

www.theregister.com

 

[BigTom]

I assumed the point of an NFT, and it certainly is the case with the Beeple sale, that it gives the buyer the ownership/rights of something that doesn’t have a physical form. I’m not sure I understand why else someone would buy an NFT? What is the context for what you are saying?

Beeple's NFT sales do not include copyright ownership: Millionaire artist Beeple: This is the very important thing 'I think people don't understand' about buying NFTs

“I think that people don’t understand that when you buy, you have the token [or NFT]. You can display the token and show you own the token, but, you don’t own the copyright” to the art that is represented by the token, Winkelmann, 39, says.

Just as “if you buy a [physical] painting, you just bought the painting,” he says. “You did not buy the copyright to that picture. And so, it’s very similar with these tokens.”

The “Everydays: The First 5000 Days” NFT that Winkelmann auctioned at Christie’s, for example, was sold including a massive jpeg file and Ethereum blockchain code, but did not include copyright ownership of the art.

(Winkelmann is Beeple)

 

[Magnus McGinty]

you're assuming everyone has a right to earn a living from being an artist. I wish that were true but it never has been.

No, you’ve got it the wrong way round. Most people I know who produce art do so for fun / hobby but would be more than happy to earn a bit of cash from it. And why shouldn’t they be?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Beeple's NFT sales do not include copyright ownership: Millionaire artist Beeple: This is the very important thing 'I think people don't understand' about buying NFTs



(Winkelmann is Beeple)

I understand that he retains rights but it also gives rights to the buyer. Otherwise why spend $70M on it? Or I suppose the buyer owns the piece but Beeple is still able to display the works on his website.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

I understand that he retains rights but it also gives rights to the buyer. Otherwise why spend $70M on it?

Only bragging rights.

And the ability to adjust yer taxes.