In my opinion it is just a copy with an good protection. Like i make a copy of an poster and look it up in a safe. Nothing more, nothing less. But it is still just a copy. It is not unique. Value comes from uniqueness, yes, but not in the digital world. Such a thing does not exists in a digital world.
Here just the safe is unique, not the content.
If you want unique digital art you have to bound it to hardware. Like a digital photoframe where i break the usb port after uploading my art on it and delete the source, maybe. Then you have an original, it is getting old, you can only take pictures with lower quality of it, you have to destroy it to get the original data of it.
added:
Hm, thats an idea that could make money, hardware to make digital art unique. Take it and make the best of it.
Ahha, I don’t know about that: we’re barely civilized monkeys who can’t even manage their trash. A bit too soon to hope for transcendence.
Not to mention that WE probably won’t be living in digital world. Only copies. Don’t think they should be concerned about not being unique since they won’t be even human anyway and, ideally, won’t have our stupid existential fears.
Exactly this. Was interested in it, since I still think a easy decentralised commercial copyright exchange system wouldn’t be that bad to have, but when a tutorial talked about the fees it was pretty clear why it is currently hyped…
its also a question of morality to support or not support such a system.
People have been selling and commissioning “art,” using ordinary legal-tender currency and protected by copyright laws, for a very long time now.
Why should you try to “sell your art” in some domain that uses digital cock-a-foo-foo, therefore only to those who are also willing to use that same digital cock-a-foo-foo, when you could just as easily sell your art on the wide-open market for actual money? Perhaps to resellers and retailers who will pay you an agreed-upon royalty for every copy they manage to sell or license, while you retain the copyright? Hey, the entire “music business” operates in exactly that oh-so conventional way. So do movie studios, television producers, you name it.
Your trusty detector" should be telling you all you need to know about this particular bit of pseudo-digital hand waving. “If it smells like it, that’s what it is. Period.”
Yes, you have a birthday, but it wasn’t yesterday. Don’t let talk about “stupendous amounts of money” lead you astray. Don’t let greed get the best of you. A tulip is a very pretty flower that smells nice: nothing more, and nothing less.
1 Like
Renzatic
(Professor Emeritus Billy H. Wafflesmith XIV Esq.)
26
“No, this is only a reproduction .jpeg. If you want the original .tga, you’ll have to fork over $3 million bucks.”
Value comes from scarcity combined with demand. If somebody is willing to pay then the thing in question has value. It doesn’t matter if it is silly or not.
And apparently there is a certain demand for scarce digital art. And apparently this NTF thing has made it possible to make digital art scarce. At least in the eyes of some people. Hence the value.
I mean, sure it is silly that one copy is worth a lot while the exact same copy is worth nothing just because it was the first copy. But then, certain stamps being worth thousands or even millions is just as silly.
Why should “art” be scarce? They’re only harping “scarcity” because their digital barter-tokens are scarce. I want a copy of my art to be hanging over the kitchen table of every double-wide trailer in the world, and to have been paid a nickel for each and every one.
You’ll make twice as much money selling a million copies for something a buck apiece, than you will by selling one “scarce” thing for $500,000.00. I’ll want my distributors to make just as many copies as they need to, to keep up with demand, and to pay me a royalty for every copy sold. While I hurry to create the next thing to (hopefully) sell to the same people, knowing that repeat customers are also the best ones.
Yes, I do own a number of original pencil drawings – fabulously detailed – but when I bought one that the artist had literally “just completed a few moments before,” it was with the agreement that he could keep the original long enough to make the printing plates that his printer would use to make thousands of copies for retail sale. Having done that, he sent my purchase to me, fully insured. I desired to own the thing that he had actually drawn, and he agreed to sell it to me – of course at a nice premium. But: “selling one thing, once,” was not the way he earned his daily bread.
[quote=“sundialsvc4, post:25, topic:1289502, full:true”]
People have been selling and commissioning “art,” using ordinary legal-tender currency and protected by copyright laws, for a very long time now.[/quote]
Sure. But again a digital way to register your work, and wich includes an easy, fast, cheap and hastle free transfer of the rights (with documentation), would be still welcomed by me.
Wich this method is not.
Starting the need to use a crypto currency, those horrendous fees, and having more than one middle man.
As for the rest 100% agreement. This is again a bussiness just selling the dream of becoming rich.
copyright.govdoes let you register a “collection” of works on-line for a mere $35, and the registration takes legal effect immediately. You do not have to wait for the pretty piece of paper to arrive in the mail.
This scheme is nothing more and nothing less than an old-fashioned swindle.
See, now you can do both. You can sell a single scarce one for a million and then print a million cheap copies and sell them for a dollar a piece.
Some people want a scarce one and some want a cheap one.
You can even make half scarce ones and sell them for 1000.
From a tutorial I watched it seems there’s no actual “art” stored with the “token”. The website that makes the sale possible stores the jpg and in addition to that you can put a description with the “thing purchased” that includes to a link to another copy of the file on your own website or dropbox or whatever.
So you could look at a piece, screenshot it or download it from the page or your browser cache, then buy the piece and download a high rez version from that url that is revealed after purchase, then sell it and get your money back.
In theory yes, but you need to mint them, wich either means you have to processing power and kowhow yourself, or you buy it from services. Wich also means you need etheriums to start with…and then add up any fees from the auction sites. For an artist wich just want to sell art these are a lot of middle men. Youtube has some nice tuts on how to create nft, wich also shows you how much it costs to set it up.
I want to go further, I want a system wich is decentralised, offers the benefit of quickly setting it up (with standard cash), and gives you a record on wich person the actual copyright owner is and was, and finaly beeing able to transfer this with one click with a fee wich is in the .10$ range for each transaction. No sytsem does that currently. Thinking further such a system should also differentiate between a copyright user and holder. NFT does not do that.
wich brings on another issue with nft…how much is this in save waters considering copyright laws ? Are there any legal decissions if this is actually holds up ? If I would spend 500k $ on an gif, I would at least be sure I actually get what I’m paying for…
