I’ve sold some photos as NFTs 🤷♀️, and I’ve bought some art from well known people like sabet and ame72.
It’s not as ridiculous as people make it sound. It’s just these headlines of the most ridiculous examples sets people’s perception of the tech. It’s really not much different than patreon or something, except the creator doesn’t get totally screwed.
In your opinion, how is that functionally different than when I sold photos on DeviantArt, and they got an email instead of a token? Are NFT-haters upset that art is being sold at all? Or are they upset about the delivery system?
bought art and also given out/received pointers to the receipts as NFTs.
I have NFTs with assets on chain as well, so in fact those ones aren’t just “pointers”.
Isn’t that like owning an original photo? There are 10 million copies of the photo and you have the original but if anyone wanted one they could just copy an online image of it and print a copy.
NFT-haters love to point out that the thing you ‘own’ is the blockchain token, not the actual art asset itself. I always find this argument silly since:
the token is the whole point. The NFT revolution (or mania, if you want to call it that) is because the tokens are the enabling technology. Where the art itself actually lives is just secondary. Nobody is getting excited about the JPEGs themselves, not really (let’s be real, most of the “art” is dogshit). People got excited about what the tokens enabled. Just one example, I can send all owners of my photos (the tokens) additional art as a bonus thank you. I know exactly who has my tokens. I can also gate premium features (similar to Patreon) to token holders. This functionality is how Ticketmaster is exploring NFTs
If I buy my digital wedding photos, or something on DeviantArt, or wherever, and if I lose that asset (computer wiped, whatever), I can just go and redownload it. It’s a copy. Of course it is. We live in a digital age. I don’t really understand why NFT-haters rave all the time about owning copies of the assets. Of course it’s a copy. Even onchain art assets are just ‘copies’ since it’s decentralized over 1000s of computers
Isn’t that like owning an original photo?
Anybody who’s ever used the technology will understand this immediately. Anybody who has actually bought/used NFTs understand how silly these ‘well technically…’ arguments are.
What a good argument would be would be the distinct between ownership and possession:
ownership = rights (human law, rulings/opinions, enforced top down. i.e. titles)
possession = control (physics laws, math, enforced bottom up i.e. car keys)
crypto IMHO was never about the former. “Ownership” will always live in the layer of social agreement. What crypto gives is “possession”: control above the TOS and paper rights that web 2 gave us. The first time the user can possess the keys to his stuff on a database that’s shared with other people (and not just the illusion of). This distinction is the reason why even though you do “own” your digital song/videos/game loot on amazon or PS5 via their TOS, you cannot trade it, swap it with a friend, resell it… The key never left your digital landlord, they just let you in to play. You had the papers for your car, but not the key. You never possessed what you owned.
I’ve sold some photos as NFTs 🤷♀️, and I’ve bought some art from well known people like sabet and ame72.
It’s not as ridiculous as people make it sound. It’s just these headlines of the most ridiculous examples sets people’s perception of the tech. It’s really not much different than patreon or something, except the creator doesn’t get totally screwed.
You did not sell photos or buy art as NFTs. You might have sold photos and bought art and also given out/received pointers to the receipts as NFTs.
In your opinion, how is that functionally different than when I sold photos on DeviantArt, and they got an email instead of a token? Are NFT-haters upset that art is being sold at all? Or are they upset about the delivery system?
I have NFTs with assets on chain as well, so in fact those ones aren’t just “pointers”.
Isn’t that like owning an original photo? There are 10 million copies of the photo and you have the original but if anyone wanted one they could just copy an online image of it and print a copy.
NFT-haters love to point out that the thing you ‘own’ is the blockchain token, not the actual art asset itself. I always find this argument silly since:
the token is the whole point. The NFT revolution (or mania, if you want to call it that) is because the tokens are the enabling technology. Where the art itself actually lives is just secondary. Nobody is getting excited about the JPEGs themselves, not really (let’s be real, most of the “art” is dogshit). People got excited about what the tokens enabled. Just one example, I can send all owners of my photos (the tokens) additional art as a bonus thank you. I know exactly who has my tokens. I can also gate premium features (similar to Patreon) to token holders. This functionality is how Ticketmaster is exploring NFTs
If I buy my digital wedding photos, or something on DeviantArt, or wherever, and if I lose that asset (computer wiped, whatever), I can just go and redownload it. It’s a copy. Of course it is. We live in a digital age. I don’t really understand why NFT-haters rave all the time about owning copies of the assets. Of course it’s a copy. Even onchain art assets are just ‘copies’ since it’s decentralized over 1000s of computers
Anybody who’s ever used the technology will understand this immediately. Anybody who has actually bought/used NFTs understand how silly these ‘well technically…’ arguments are.
What a good argument would be would be the distinct between ownership and possession:
ownership = rights (human law, rulings/opinions, enforced top down. i.e. titles)
possession = control (physics laws, math, enforced bottom up i.e. car keys)
crypto IMHO was never about the former. “Ownership” will always live in the layer of social agreement. What crypto gives is “possession”: control above the TOS and paper rights that web 2 gave us. The first time the user can possess the keys to his stuff on a database that’s shared with other people (and not just the illusion of). This distinction is the reason why even though you do “own” your digital song/videos/game loot on amazon or PS5 via their TOS, you cannot trade it, swap it with a friend, resell it… The key never left your digital landlord, they just let you in to play. You had the papers for your car, but not the key. You never possessed what you owned.
Sometimes I need a blank piece of paper so I hit the START button on my copier without something in the tray.
But what I get is a copy of a blank piece of paper. It looks blank, but it’s just a copy