Saying that art is stolen is buying into their hype. No art is being stolen, only a false entry being made into a ledger, then the ledger imbues this false entry with a sense of sanctity, and the newly sanctified entry can be traded as if it were meaningful and accurate.
-
-
In all of this the original art is left intact. No theft of the artwork has taken place. It's more like getting a fake copy of the work, paying import charges on the fake copy, then using those charges to "prove" your copy is legitimate so you can sell it for money.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Except that this analogy doesn't even start to cover the complete waste of resources that this whole process causes, and also implies that the buyer gets something real. The only useful part of the analogy is the point that the original art is untouched.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
The art is kind of still being stolen though. An object which represents the art in a system is being created and sold. The art is the only thing that sets the object apart from other similar objects and is what influences its value.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
The art is untouched. It's being used to launder information. More accurately it's the concept of a particular piece of art that's being attached to an entry in a ledger, and people are pretending it has value because it makes it easy to transfer wealth if both sides accept that.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Yes. That's exactly my understanding of it. It's art theft to, for example, save and post a copy of that art your own account without permission. This, creating a representation of the art in another system and selling that representation, goes a step further.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @RedOphiuchus @phyphor and
But it's not a representation. It's basically just a fake certificate of authenticity.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @potaterator @RedOphiuchus and
Unless I am mistaken, an NFT for digital art does not actually contain anything beyond a cryptographic hash of that art's data.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @potaterator @RedOphiuchus and
it contains the data of the art as well as metadata about itself, like who owns the nft and whatnot. but owning an nft doesnt actually mean owning the art except in an arbitrary definition of the validity of that particular nft. its also not legally binding at all
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zodiacwars_ @RedOphiuchus and
Encoding arbitrary amounts of binary data into a blockchain seems unworkable.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
Yeah an NFT actually containing a high-res image is why a single transaction of said NFT costs several times as much electricity as a "normal" transaction and in some cases is more than an average household uses in a year
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @RedOphiuchus and
yeah i am going to make a wild guess and suggest that making an nft from someone else's copyrighted art is not covered by fair use
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @perdricof @arthur_affect and
idk, i feel like its just going to end up coming down to how some judge interprets the difference between "selling ownership of an NFT" vs "selling art". i guess the biggest factor is that cryptoart encodes the image data into the token, but im not sure it'd be ruled that way
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.