FTX-hosted NFTs break after website is redirected to a restructuring page
It’s kind of unbelievable what a shitshow this all is.
Apparently, people who minted NFTs using FTX now can’t see their NFTs because FTX’s web sites are fubar. Neither can anyone else. So, they bought what was claimed to be fancy cryptocurrency-based investment computer art, and now they can’t even look at their art and the investment is probably worthless. Who’s going to buy art they can’t see?
@prologic@twtxt.net There are things that are valuable, even if you can’t physically own them - for example intellectual property.
The problem with NFTs, is that by buying one, you don’t own the art physically, legally or even digitally - you don’t really own it at all, you just bought some vague digital receipt with a link attached.
So by right clicking and saving the file attached to the NFT, you actually own a copy, unlike the person who bought it.
@prologic@twtxt.net @thecanine@twtxt.net Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It’s a Seductive Mirage
@marado@tilde.pt It’s still a convenient term to use for that category of laws, even if it is more misleading.
In case of art you’re mostly dealing with copyright, or the license to use the art in some way. Patents and some other laws, one might find under the “intellectual property” umbrella are all good example of things that have value, despite not being physical.
Even if somebody wanted to argue against this, it’s weird to draw the line between physical art and the rest of it.
Would printing out the image or script to a theater play, suddenly give it value, that it didn’t have before?
@prologic@twtxt.net The rights to perform the play, would be what’s most valuable. A printed copy would probably be worth more, than the digital one, because of the price of paper and printing ink.
But on the other hand, sometimes the digital copy has more value to people, because it’s easier to share (both digitally or in making additional prints).
@abucci@anthony.buc.ci having worked with NFTs for a ‘crypto startup’ and currently preparing a course on Legal aspects for videogames, that’s an appealing topic to discuss.
Disclaimer: I’m open to controversial technologies, sure, taking the collateral damage into consideration. Personal, to my family, to the community and to the humanity.
@abucci@anthony.buc.ci yeah, that’s something stupid from the first generation of NFTs. Having a certificate that you possess an URL.
It’s slightly different than having possession of a file’s hash.
And as with everything, that’s as useful as the value we give to stuff. Why is a canvas with some paint valuable for us? Because we agree on it, or a group of rich people do. Or just because.
Talking about value, owners, innovators, disruptors, influences, power, value and such its always an interesting thing in this slice of life.
I wrote a bit about that here:
https://text.eapl.mx/quick-ideas-about-isms-and-ownership
NFTs + art + money + technology is extremely difficult mix since we are putting together many definitions of art and science. Those not involving money, with another about speculation and opportunism.
Sadly when money is involved, (often) you see the worst parts of humans. But also a huge drive to push things forward, so that’s a weird paradox of progress and innovation.
@thecanine@twtxt.net yeah, IP is extremely difficult due to its intangible nature.
Yeah, it’s designed to protect monopolies in a similar fashion on “the land is from the nature, why should someone could possess the land, and what is on top of it”
No, it’s not made to promote creation, but to restrict. It’s a restrictive regulation, but somehow needed and not so updated for 2022 needs. Yeah, things like ‘Information wants to be free’ is a colliding reality, between previous generations of owners, new creators and a public willing to find the path of least resistance.
@thecanine@twtxt.net that definition could be outdated, you’ll have to read the licence to know what rights are you geting when you pay for something in a traditional platform or on a ‘crypto contract’
For instance you could copy a book on epub format, but you shouldn’t. And you could just pirate it since is just a bunch of bytes, but maybe you want to legally buy it without DRM.
Sometimes you get rights to sell your current copy, sometimes you own ‘Related rights’, etc. Sadly it’s not a simple regulation but things like Creative Commons is a good starting point to know more about Copyright (US/UK) and author’s rights (Europe, Latam)
@eaplmx@twtxt.net I’m all for less restrictions. The land ownership is a good example. When people in this country buy a piece of forest land, they don’t put fences around it and let people and animals use it freely. In contrast, this obviously wouldn’t work for all land. You wouldn’t want strangers and wildlife randomly walking through your house - or at least i wouldn’t.
Back to the ownership of art. I value my pixelart somewhat and part of why I started making it, was to stand out of the crowd, that is social media and have something unique and memorable, that people can recognize me by. I’m not crazy, so if someone randomly finds it somewhere and starts using it as their profile picture, I’ll politely ask them not to, rather than throwing a law book at them and claiming non-existent damages.
With NFTs, the situation is different. People usually know it’s wrong, but still felt entitled to just steal art and keep all of the profits for themselves, while the artist who did all the work gets nothing at best and a damaged reputation at worse. Even if the license the art is under allows it, I still see it as misuse of the art and the license, that was most likely intended for the art being used for some nice website illustrations or to help people express themselves online, rather than for someones pyramid scheme.