> Perhaps that was what Nguyen was thinking when he spent more than $330,000 on the various ape NFTs on display at his restaurant.
Wow. I can't imagine what anyone is thinking when they pay that much to brag about some random blockchain that says they own an arbitrary URL that may or may not link to an image.
It works fine with actual art but I've yet to see an NFT comparable to say: the Mona Lisa. When I got into the blockchain space ~9 years ago I would have never imagined years later people would be going crazy over pictures of jpegs. People used to discuss amazingly cool tech stuff: like SSL oracles or privacy-preserving payment protocols. Now it's all about what the price is and moronic NFTs. It's embarrassing.
>People used to discuss amazingly cool tech stuff: like SSL oracles or privacy-preserving payment protocols. Now it's all about what the price is and moronic NFTs. It's embarrassing.
It is because blockchains cannot actually be used to do any of those cool tech things in any meaningful way. If you try to build any of those things on top of a blockchain you will realize quickly that blockchains are bad solution. The only purpose of them is to pump up the value of a casino token which is then used to pay a tax to the operators of the network. It's no surprise that after this nonsense you're only left with irrational actors.
And that is only for the average user; for the whales, the purpose of them appears to be mainly profiting off of massive amounts of fraud and criminal activity while maintaining the plausible deniability of being able to say "technically we don't control the blockchain so we're not responsible".
earlier you said blockchains cannot do these things. now you’re saying that blockchains aren’t the best for these tasks. pick one or the other and stick to it. don’t confuse things by claiming one point and then going on to argue a different point.
Blockchains indeed cannot do that, those things are added on separately, they exist independently of blockchains, and have uses outside of it. If this is hard to understand, let me illustrate with a more clear example. Some blockchains have smart contracts, and you can technically write a game of chess into a smart contract. This does not mean that it is accurate or meaningful to say "blockchains can play chess" or "chess is a feature of blockchains" or something like that. Even if blockchains became totally unpopular for everything else, and were only used to play chess, it would still not be accurate as the idea of a blockchain still would not actually include the ability to play chess. It is about as accurate as saying "chess is a feature of tables". Also, it would be pretty horrible to play that way and blockchain gaming is a total disaster, so I doubt that would happen.
> It is because blockchains cannot actually be used to do any of those cool tech things in any meaningful way.
even in the comment you just wrote, you’re still arguing a different point than what you originally said. this time you’ve shifted from “cannot be used to do” to “cannot do”.
there are interesting discussions to be had (why didn’t we have permission-less privacy-preserving coins before blockchains? what are the better ways of achieving such global systems, and solving double-spend/consensus than blockchain, today?). but it’s impossible to have those discussions if you keep claiming one thing and then arguing the other thing.
>even in the comment you just wrote, you’re still arguing a different point than what you originally said. this time you’ve shifted from “cannot be used to do” to “cannot do”.
I think it is clear enough that I meant the same thing. If that wasn't clear, you can ask for further clarification. There is no need to make this into a pedantic game.
>but it’s impossible to have those discussions if you keep claiming one thing and then arguing the other thing.
No, it is not? Why would it be? In fact I will have those discussions with you now.
>why didn’t we have permission-less privacy-preserving coins before blockchains?
We don't have those with blockchains either. They are not permissionless nor are they privacy preserving except under some very extreme and impractical circumstances. You can have your permission to use a blockchain revoked if all the miners/validators reach consensus on blacklisting your wallet. Also, all public blockchains have no privacy by default as all the data is public.
>what are the better ways of achieving such global systems, and solving double-spend/consensus than blockchain, today?
Basically anything else, because blockchains do not actually "solve" consensus. The "consensus" is done simply by paying off the participants in increasing numbers as an incentive to stop them from bad behavior, it has nothing to do with the actual blockchain itself. They are able to "solve" double spend in a very contrived way, at the expense of being able to solve any other problem that might befall the network. The traditional way to solve double spend is to use good old fashioned accounting, it doesn't have that same constraint.
> We don't have those with blockchains either. They are not permissionless nor are they privacy preserving except under some very extreme and impractical circumstances. You can have your permission to use a blockchain revoked if all the miners/validators reach consensus on blacklisting your wallet.
i assume we’re talking about Monero or zcash, as the better-known privacy coins. i grant you that Monero miners can block you by address. how can you be censored on zcash? it’s cryptographically impossible to link addresses to each other, so you can’t block by address. is it permissioned based on IP address? is that defeatable with trivial means like VPNs or Tor or just going to the neighborhood coffee shop? has censorship of zcash transactions ever been demonstrated?
If integrating a blockchain makes it worse, then I think it's fair to say that you're not "in any meaningful way" using a blockchain to make it happen.
I think its more because only the greatest artworks have ended up being curated. I'm sure if NFT art were as old as physical art there would be more to choose from. I want to also say that in my view I don't believe an NFT has value by itself unless its being used somewhere that people like. For example: a skin in a (popular) game. Otherwise it really is just a file sitting on a computer. It ought to have an impact somewhere and there ought to be at least some backing promise that such an impact will stay.
I really do think digital property has value but only when you do it right.
No, or at least not entirely. Even if I was to (theoretically) copy the Mona Lisa so perfectly that no existing technology could tell the difference, the original would still be worth more than my copy.
The original you see today isn’t the original that would have been seen immediately after it was painted.
Mona Lisa is pretty crap anyway, if you ever find yourself in the Louvre, look at what’s hung on the opposite wall. Now that is an impressive painting.
In truth, the painting is suffering from deterioration, the poplar panel is warped, the columns that used to frame her are missing, and restoration has obscured some details. A print doesn't convey the physicality of the cracked, rough surface of the paint, the sfumato technique, the almost total lack of visible brushstrokes, the gauzy veil, Mona Lisa's hair, the luminescence of her skin and the overall impression of glowing.
Whatever the actual quality and condition of the original, no reproduction will adequately represent it.
A very minor side interest of mine. Enough to know the basics of art history, criticism and conservation. I know terms to use and where to look up details I don't recall off the top of my head. My side gig is photography, using film, and making physical prints. As with painting, a digital image or calendar page can't quite match the experience of seeing say an original Ansel Adams or Robert Frank print in person.
It's FOMO because they knew people that bought at something you would feel is ridiculous and sold for 40x or whatever and so they convince themselves the same thing will happen. I think this is less crazy than the first round of buyers after the initial pop.
The short answers are: they don't, no, and it doesn't. Some NFTs do have a separate legal document saying you get a copyright license (or maybe even the copyright) if you "own" the NFT, but this is not required, and is entirely separate from the NFT. The author could very easily mint multiple NFTs of the same thing or just sell more licenses of the same thing on the side; if you look into the fine print of any NFT marketplace they will say straight out that you are not actually getting any exclusive ownership of anything unless the seller explicitly says so in separate legal terms. And even then, it usually is on the buyer to do any due diligence to make sure that the copyright actually belongs to them and the artwork isn't ripped off.
I expect NFTs are most analogous to owning a copy of a work, not the copyright. So you pay $330k and you get rights equivalent to prints of a piece of art. This may come with an implied right to publicly display the art, or may not, and that right may be limited in some ways. And, like a print, you can keep and treasure your NFT or re-sell it.
But you don’t own the copyright and can’t make more prints unless there was a separate agreement to that effect.
Certainly the first person to buy a bored ape from BAYC, they definitely entered into a legal contract with BAYC that granted them a copyright license.
But if you bought a Bored Ape NFT from someone else, did the sale contract you made with them definitely include another copyright license transfer? Or did you just buy an NFT?
What if the previous owner of your Bored Ape, while they held the copyright, took it upon themselves to separately sell the copyright to someone else, so by the time you bought the NFT, they didn't even have the copyright any more?
What if the previous owner of the Ape, as its copyright holder, and perhaps unknown to you, chose to release it to the public domain?
I don't think they're transferring the copyright but granting IP and commercial rights to the NFT holder. As many of the other commenters are pointing out, this isn't the typical way NFT's work but some are like this. Just like some NFT's don't point to a url but either are stored on chain (cryptopunks) or via content-based addressing (IPFS hash).
The problem is when you buy a second hand bored ape, you don’t have any direct contract with BAYC.
They might be able to enforce terms of their original contract on the first party buyer - ‘once you sell the ape you no longer have this license’. But they have no contractual relationship (no ‘privity’) with you.
Perhaps possession of the ape entitled you to go to BAYC and get a license contract?
That’s great, so long as BAYC 1) continues to honor that agreement (and since you have no contract with them to begin with there’s nothing obliging them to do so) and 2) continues to exist. If they go under and their copyright in their apes gets auctioned off, good luck finding whoever acquired your ape and persuading them that since you own a hash in a blockchain they really have to grant you a license to use that ape.
And as an owner of a second hand ape you have no legal recourse if they (or their successors, or their receivers during their bankruptcy) decide they no longer want to.
Is this fundamentally different then any other licensing agreement? Presumably if you want more security you'd get a lawyer and sign a contract but it's not something I've ever had to deal with before. If you think the company is going to go bankrupt then you probably wouldn't make the deal to begin with.
If you have purchased a license from a copyright holder, and then they go bust, and the copyright gets picked up in the ensuing fire sale by someone else, you still have the ability to go to the new rightsholder and say ‘hey, those rights were licensed to me, I plan on continuing to exercise them.’
But it is by no means clear that someone who bought an NFT from someone who bought an NFT from someone who bought an NFT from the original copyright holder has any basis for being able to expect the new holder of that copyright to continue to allow them to exercise the terms of the original license agreement made between the original seller and the original buyer.
> ii. Personal Use. Subject to your continued compliance with these Terms, Yuga Labs LLC grants you a worldwide, royalty-free license to use, copy, and display the purchased Art, along with any extensions that you choose to create or use, solely forthe following purposes: (i) for your own personal, non-commercial use; (ii) as part of a marketplace that permits the purchase and sale of your Bored Ape / NFT [...]
> iii. Commercial Use. Subject to your continued compliance with these Terms, Yuga Labs LLC grants you an unlimited, worldwide license to use, copy, and display the purchased Art for the purpose of creating derivative works based upon the Art (“Commercial Use”). Examples of such Commercial Use would e.g. be the use of the Art to produce and sell merchandise products (T-Shirts etc.) displaying copies of the Art. [...]
> The Bored Ape Yacht Club terms of service grant a commercial license to exploit the copyright of each Bored Ape to the owner of the relevant NFT.
So the holder of a Bored Ape NFT has a license to commercially use the off-chain image associated with the NFT by way of an on-chain URL. That license is granted by the actual copyright holders of all of the Bored Apes.
And this is important because? It doesn’t need to be globally visible. If I sell you ownership, I can do that via email or a piece of paper. And then when it’s disputed you can bring up the email and transaction receipt.
And it doesn’t even require an entire countries worth of electricity to do it.
Even if that’s the case, does anyone think procedurally generated computer art of Bored Apes would be worth even a fraction of a few dollars if it wasn’t for crypto marketing making people believe they can sell it for much more? In other words, the only value these things have is the belief that a bigger sucker will come around who will pay even more for it.
And has it actually been copyrighted with the USPTO and the various copy protection agencies across the world? Because if not, then who will actually enforce it and what legal backing does that copyright have?
And if it has been copyrighted, then what value does putting it on a blockchain add when the copyright enforcement is being maintained by the same entities that would have done it if it was on Shutterstock?
Speculation is one thing, and I think it is what drives the costs to such ridiculous extremes.
However, I don't think it explains all of the value.
First is the art itself, probably not worth much considering that it is rather generic and partly generated art, but some people may actually like it.
Then there is the idea of being part of something big. Some people think that NFTs are revolutionary, that in the future, this is what will represent property, more than a paper in some administrative office. Owning a NFT now is like owning a piece of history.
And there is also this idea that many collectors share that if it is rare and unique, it is worth having, and apes are rare and unique.
I know some collectors who spend thousands on collectable items, like video game cartridges or trading cards with no intention to ever sell them back. It is their treasure, it represents a lot of dedication and effort, they may have memories attached to it. It may sound stupid to outsiders but it is important.
I would have no problem with NFTs if they were simply billed as a useless "collectible" thing sitting in an account that you can use as an excuse to show off how you donated to an artist. But from that perspective, you don't need blockchains or smart contracts; the only thing needed is a donations platform like Patreon. The ridiculous nonsense about how NFTs are going to be "rare unique property" and "an investment" is a pure grift. It is shameful to see artists repeating those lies just to make a dollar. You are getting nothing from them. At least with trading cards you technically do get a picture you can look at, and maybe you could use them for enjoyment to play a game. With NFTs you are literally getting nothing. They are designed to seize the minds of people who have that "collector" personality and take advantage of them.
In many NFTs, the content itself is not covered by a hash (although the URL pointing to it is) so it would be incredibly difficult to prove that “ownership” in any case?
The copyright holder is free to write up a license that says the current holder of the NFT may use it as if they hold the copyright, though. Many NFTs don’t, but it’s possible.
But nothing guarantees that the seller of the NFT, the current holder of the NFT, is also the current copyright holder.
It's basically completely disconnected, so while the transfers may traditionally be done at the same time between the same entities, that's not a contract. The NFT just gives you a Blockchain url. If you didn't sign anything else then you got nothing else.
> When you purchase an NFT, you own the underlying Bored Ape, the Art, completely.
> Subject to your continued compliance with these Terms, Yuga Labs LLC grants you an unlimited, worldwide license to use, copy, and display the purchased Art for the purpose of creating derivative works based upon the Art (“Commercial Use”).
Remember the case of the crypto guys who bought a physical copy of Dune worth $40,000 for $3 million and thought that gave them the rights to make an animated series out of it? Good times. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a38815538/dune-c...
What use is the copyright ownership? Does anyone have any interest in the images, other than their speculative "value" as an NFT? I can't imagine anyone being able to (for example) sell posters or prints of a bored ape. Or is my imagination simply lacking?
This has nothing to do with copyright. You own a piece of the blockchain, sad thing is that thing is not even an image or anything, its a url, and its target can change. It’s like a collective delusion.
This emperor has no clothes, but still mant people choose to believe.
No one ever believed. Other than crypto tech bros on HN shilling it all day. Take a look at what the general public thinks. They saw it as a scam on day one, and continued to see it as a scam which is why all the consumer product companies failed to have their NFT products take off.
Wow. I can't imagine what anyone is thinking when they pay that much to brag about some random blockchain that says they own an arbitrary URL that may or may not link to an image.