This article makes my brain want to bleed.
I’ll say it louder one last time for the people in the back:
THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH BITS IN ANY TYPE OF NFT TO STORE ART ON THE BLOCKCHAIN. THE BEST YOU CAN DO IS A URL WEBLINK TO THE IMAGE AND AN IMAGE HASH. THAT IS FUNCTIONALLY NOT THE SAME AS STORING THE ACTUAL IMAGE ON THE BLOCKCHAIN. IF THE ORIGINAL IMAGE GETS DELETED, THE URL AND HASH ARE BOTH EFFECTIVELY USELESS.
The art is always a completely separate entity from the NFT itself. Trying to act like this is “regulating art” is just more cryptobro bullshit.
Clearly, the answer is more blockchain. In fact, let’s blockchain the blockchain and then blockchain that blockchain to… Woo, I got carried away. What were we talking about?
Don’t recall… let’s check the Blockchain!
blockchain where we buy hashes linking to the image library of babel.
What do you mean babel? My links are on megaupload! Wait…
There are currently [2] insecure techbros downvoting reality.
Yes, and a deed for land ownership is not the same thing as land itself. Nobody cares. That’s not the point.
And legal regulations around the deeds for land ownership are different laws than the legal regulations for how you can use the land.
But conflating the two as the same thing is the purpose of this lawsuit, even though it’s clear as fucking day that they are regulating the deal-making-instrument (the NFT) and not the art itself, which, once again, is a separate entity from the NFT.
Let’s assume you’re arguing in good faith here so we can understand why land deeds and URLs are completely different.
Deeds are managed by a central authority. There is an agreed-upon way(s) to view and search those deeds. There is a single authority to update or remove deeds. The items the deed refers to also are controlled by a single authority and changing them has a single process.
URLs are registered (loosely) with a central authority but the similarities end there. I can impersonate a URL on a network (even up to large chunks of the internet if I’m able to confuse DNS in a large enough attack). So just because you’ve bought the domain referenced in the blockchain and set up some name servers doesn’t mean any consumer of the blockchain or even the internet is guaranteed to hit your instance of the domain. All a URL is is a reference to something so let’s assume for a minute we can have a global reference. What’s behind it? Again, completely uncontrolled. For now it could be your NFT; what happens if I am your hosting provider and destroy your instance? Move your hardware? What’s to prevent you, the owner of the assumed global reference, to change what that uniform resource locator is actually locating?
Land deeds and URLs are not analogous. Land and the content served at a URL are not analogous. Let’s look at NFTs quickly to see if we can actually do something about this!
Since we have a single-write, read-only database, why not store the full thing in the DB? Well, first you have to agree on a representation. It has to be unchanging so we can’t use a URL. It can’t ever duplicate so realistically hashing is out (unless our hash provides a bijection which is just a fancy way of saying use the fucking object itself). Assuming we’re only talking about digital artifacts (attempting to digitize a physical asset is a form of hashing meaning we get collisions so you can’t prove ownership), we’re now in an arms race for you to register all of your assets and their serialization methods before I brute force everything. Oh and this needs to live everywhere so it can be public so you need peta-many petabyte drives. But wait! Now we’re burning the sun in power just to show you have ownership of 10 and I have ownership of 01. Fuck me that’s dumb.
The end of this fucking killed me. Thank you.
I think that is why IPFS is a popular option for NFTs. With its content addresses.
Honestly ledgers, deeds, etc. Its crazy how much energy and human effort is put into them.
Like deeds aren’t just paper, they are bueracracies, buildings, computer systems, and people with guns and batons cracking skulls.
the NFT is not the art itself, it is at best a proof of ownership.
It’s not even that.
There is a huge lack of insight into who owns the copyright of an NFT. This confusion likely stems from the fact that an NFT comprises two things: (i) the identifiable, non-fungible, non-replicable, and transferrable cryptographic asset recorded on the blockchain, and (ii) the creative content. The creative content is separate and distinct from the actual asset recorded on the blockchain. As such, the person or entity that created the creative content owns the copyright. The content creator continues to own the copyright, even if the NFT is sold to someone else. It’s analogous to Jeff Koons selling artwork he created—Koons can sell the art to one person to hang on their wall, but since Jeff also owns the copyright, he can sell that same artwork as an image on t-shirts.
https://bpp.msu.edu/magazine/nfts-what-you-need-to-know-to-protect-copyrights-june2022/
NFTs are literally just URLs, pointlessly stored on “the blockchain”. URLs that point to servers which can be switched off at any moment.
wait, what are you even buying then?!
I thought (i) at least served as a proof of ownership for (ii)…
Nope.
This is why anyone not huffing paint has stayed far away from NFTs.
No, the “non-fungibility” simply means that anyone who creates an NFT with the same link will be distinct from your link to the image, even if the actual URL is the same. Both NFTs can also be traced back to when they were created/minted because they’re on a blockchain, a property called provenance. If the authentic tokens came from a well known minting, you can establish that your token is “authentic” and the copy token is a recreation, even if the actual link (or other content) is completely identical.
Nothing about having the “authentic” token would give you actual legal rights though.
yeah, I understand the tech far better than I understand the law. I thought they legally counted as a contract, i guess they’re not even that.
For a contract transferring property, you need 2 parties: One offering and the other accepting. Having knowledge of a cryptographic key implies none of that.
You could get something like this done by transferring the asset to a reputable trustee. The trustee - a law firm, bank, or such - checks that the paperwork is in order and it has the necessary rights. It binds itself contractually to convey some benefit - eg a revocable copyright license - to whoever can show that they have a certain cryptographic key/control of a wallet.
The firm should regularly check if the beneficiary still holds the key. It might get lost or forgotten, after all. The possibility of losing access to the asset by theft or accident is the only thing that involving NFTs add to such a scheme, so one might as well lean into it.
deleted by creator
At best you’re buying into a collective agreement of ownership among those also participating in the NFT ecosystem. You own a thing because a large enough group of people agree you own it and respect the authority of that token.
At worst you’ve been scammed and are trying to convince yourself the above is true and that said “large enough group” includes anyone at all capable of enforcing said ownership. Spoilers: it does not.
Removed by mod
Why did a moderator remove my comment?
Do you want this place to die? Because excessive moderation is how this place dies.
Maybe because trash user.
I thought you at least had the rights to it, wow.
NFTs are great for replacing things like deeds or vehicle titles, where we need paperwork to verify ownership. But the problem arises when it’s cryptographically hard (meaning exceedingly unlikely on reasonable timescales) to reverse fraudulent transfers of those documents. Cutting out a centralized authority at the price of making the system more vulnerable for gullible people is almost always not worth it.
If pieces of art metadata are being traded like securities, then yes, the SEC should regulate their trade.
It should have absolutely nothing to do with the “art” associated with that metadata, it should just be regulated for what it is.
it should just be regulated for what it is.
Ok soooo how should metadata be “regulated”?
deleted by creator
You don’t regulate the metadata, you regulate its trade as a financial security.
But you knew that, you’re just being obtuse.
Regulating a money scam that uses art as a token isn’t regulating art, it’s regulating money scams.
Given that the world of high art is basically entirely used by rich people as a way to launder money and dodge taxes?
Yes. It absolutely should. It should have been like 30 years ago.
The problem with what creeps like Mann are claiming comes down to the difference between “art” and buying an “interest” in art as a speculative investment. Mann conflates these two ideas, trying to bestow the wholesomeness of artistic expression with his investment business venture. I’m all in favor of getting artists paid, and structuring society in a way that encourages the production of art, but Mann wants to weaken securities regulations and consumer protections to do that. That’s a terrible idea because it will lead to many more people being conned and defrauded.
If investors were merely trying to support an artist’s work, and not seeking to profit from their investment, they wouldn’t need a securities mechanism like NFTs to do it. We already have money for that.
If a side effect of regulating NFTs as securities is to somehow damage the regular fine art marketplace, as I think Mann’s suit is warning, that is no great loss for society. The fine art market is a blight, a fraud-riddled playground for ultra wealthy douchebags to sequester wealth and does nothing to advance art or promote the creation of artworks writ large.
Mann has ridden the crypto speculative bubble and has an inflated impression of the value of his work. He’s carved out a niche as a sort of court jester for billionaires like Mark Andreesen who want to rebuild financial systems in a way that would dismantle the regulatory state and enshrine an elite class as technologically empowered feudal lords. He thinks the money is compensation for his songs, but it’s largely just a side effect of crypto bros forever trying to find a greater fool to hold the bag in a pyramid scheme. In that effort, his lawsuit is basically a marketing campaign for his investment business. I hope the court puts an end to this once and for all, but I’m not optimistic.
deleted by creator
Maybe to paper handed bitches it doesn’t make sense.
LMAO I gotta do better at screenshotting shit for dopes who delete their comments.
“and not seeking to profit from their investment, they wouldn’t need a securities mechanism like NFTs to do it.”
Sure, that makes sense \s
I wonder how much it costs to get an advert article like that.
I thought the whole point of crypto/blockchain technologies was to avoid government regulations?
EDIT: Never mind, they’re suing because the SEC declared them as securities, which the artists don’t want.
“artists”
No worse than any other form of modern “art”
Except that the whole reason these “artists” made the “art” to begin with was to make an end-run around regulations.
These people were not driven to art because they liked making art. They liked that they could make a profit from art like the paper handed bitches they are.
Except that the whole reason these “artists” made the “art” to begin with was to make an end-run around regulations.
That also applies to a lot of meatspace modern art.
Yep, and that needs better regulation as well. Most of the “high-art” of the world is stupid shit literally used for money laundering, and NFTs just want a piece of that money-laundering pie.
Doesn’t make either of them ethical things.
As someone else pointed out here in this thread, you can support an artist with a direct donation or by buying the art with cash. I personally feel like buying it through an NFT is an outright admission that you only buy art to make money off of it.
It looks like they’re suing because the SEC declared them as a security, and the artists don’t want them to be classed as one.
I see.
I believe NFTs are actually a good idea on paper for this use case. Our implementation of the idea is weird though.
I don’t know why the SEC though. NFTs are not “money”. It’s a contract that shows ownership. It’s a legal issue in my opinion
The SEC also regulates trading in stocks, which are contracts that show ownership, just of a portion of a corporation instead of a piece of art. They’re both classified as securities because they can be bought, sold and traded as investments where people can stand to gain or lose large sums of money in said trades. They work in very similar, if not identical, ways. If the NFT did not function so much like a stock investment and was just something you could buy or sell as a regular good, then the implementation would not be so weird.
But can’t that same argument be used for a Picasso or Van Gogh painting? Are those also regulated by the SEC for ownership? NFTs are trade-able when it comes to art. It’s just a contract in the form of a deed of ownership at a digital layer being transferred.
If regular art which is often considered an investment and hogged by the ultra rich is also regulated by the SEC then you’re right. If it’s not then I don’t get why we treat the “art” which is owned by a NFT contract differently based on the type of contract we’d like to consider binding.
Guess what the SEC enforces? You guessed it, laws!
The only purpose of NFTs is to raise sea levels by metres and inundate every coastal city. Owning NFTs is a crime against humanity. Anyone who has ever owned an NFT belongs in prison
The only purpose of NFTs is to raise sea levels by metres
So NFT’s will get rid of silicon valley?
“art”
If it was actually art, it wouldn’t be able to be traded like a commodity. NFTs have very little artistic value.
It’s kind of a shame that Jonathan Mann got wrapped up in all this NFT grift. Many of his songs are quite catchy, I recommend checking him out on YouTube if you haven’t already.
