Yes, but most human energy consumption has good for society, and don’t increase exponentially with no increase in production. Crypto currencies fail both those tests, and thus are worthy of extra scorn on that basis. Bitcoin is currently contributing as much to climate change as the city of Las Vegas for what? So investment banks and technolibertarians can gamble each other’s money?
12 Likes
That doesn’t strike me as terribly likely. To the contrary, it seems extremely likely that the NFT creator is committing copyright infringement simply by creating such a token. The person who first fixes a work of authorship owns the copyright, which includes the right to make derivative works. An NFT looks to me like it checks the boxes for derivative work. We’re in the first flush of grift related to NFTs, but that doesn’t mean the law won’t catch up.
Judges may be (largely) old and not super tech-savvy, but their clerks (largely) aren’t. Given that a nonfungible token can easily (for the user, setting aside the environmental cost) be created for any piece of digital media, whatever evidentiary value the blockchain might have in providing interweb cred doesn’t strike me a super likely to convince a well informed judge that the NFT owner is the original creator.
1 Like
… Have you been to Vegas? I’m not convinced it’s providing any more good to society than bitcoin.
2 Likes
Reality says otherwise…
7 Likes
I’m suddenly reminded of those eBay scams where someone sells a picture of a thing (like, say, a hot new games console) and lets people believe they’re selling the thing itself. I mean, technically they say they’re selling a “picture of” (or NFT of) and it’s the buyer’s fault for not reading it carefully enough, if they think anything else is on offer.
10 Likes
Well, the city proper has a population of about 650 thousand with upwards of 2.2 million humans living in the metro area. I’m usually the first to rag on Las Vegas, but the fact is it’s a home and living for millions. To the best of my knowledge, no one lives in BitCoin.
10 Likes
… or mugshot sites where we have to pay to get our picture removed
3 Likes
Since there doesn’t seem to be any way to enforce copyright in the system, by design, it seems like the only remedy for artists is a class-action copyright infringement lawsuit against the marketplaces. I’m sure the marketplaces will then suddenly switch rhetoric, no longer implying (or outright saying) that they’re selling digital artworks, but insist they’re selling NFTs, not art. Somehow I don’t think that argument will hold water, given that the work is embedded and at least acts as an advertisement for the NFT.
So I’m imagining, that if this nonsense persists, it’ll be via marketplaces run by corporations selling only “collectable” NFTs based on their own IPs. The promise of this being an income stream for independent artists will evaporate quite quickly.
Except if you pay them, you actually can get your picture removed. It sounds like that’s not theoretically possible with NFTs.
3 Likes
Like busting Al Capone for tax evasion, perhaps the authorities will ultimately shut down the cryptopocalypse for rampant, unapologetic, and uncorrectable copyright violation
5 Likes
I was hoping you were going for
environmental destruction but I guess a YouTube-style copyright infraction is more likely.
5 Likes
THAT’S not against the law 
8 Likes
I mean, that’s why it’s interesting, though. The idea of a non-replicable digital item is interesting. I don’t think it’s worth everything else tied to it here, which is a nightmare, but there are plenty of uses for non-replicable digital items - or, as we use them today, authenticated digital items.
Every SSL certificate is essentially this, a way to establish credibility of a website. We currently trust major organizations (or at least broad and popular ones like LetsEncrypt) to know that the website you’re looking at is really the one you want to see.
Similarly, what about digital IDs for people, or digital proofs of things like vaccination? The idea that these things are both authentic and distributed is both interesting and pretty cool! It democratizes these problems! No more are you beholden to the authority of the state, the masses now validate your identity for you!
Oh…just one little problem. It’s a fucking nightmare of implementation problems. All the stuff I’ve said above sounds like I’m a techbro trying to sell you bitcoin but the problem is that it all falls apart as soon as you begin to examine it any further than what I’m talking about above. But it’s still interesting.
2 Likes
There will be good use cases for NFT’s also. Things we can not even think of right now. As for the collectibles side nba top shot and every other sports league will follow. NFT’s are not going anywhere anytime soon. Too much money and demand in something like nba top shot already which has the league behind them also ufc will be out soon. Now non verified users being able to create them with other people’s art surely could be regulated somehow. NFT’s as a whole are just starting though no matter how many people think they are a silly fad. Even if they are it will take awhile to run their cycle.
SO MUCH MONEY AND DEMAND, for THINGS WE CANNOT EVEN THINK OF
8 Likes
(Velcome to BB.)
8 Likes
7 Likes
Except, the NFTs don’t necessarily include the work itself, and they don’t necessarily include a license. So if it’s not being copied, that means copyright does not apply. Trademark law might, as someone minting an NFT for someone else’s art is trying to profit off of the artist’s brand.
Essentially, you are buying a number that has been branded with an artist’s name and a particular work of art. It may or may not have been signed by the artist originally. It may or may not come with a digital copy. It may be illegal to share any copy of the work with others. If you buy an NFT second hand, it may be illegal for the original purchaser to give you a copy of the work. It may not come with an exclusive copy.
It’s just a number with a note from the artist. If it doesn’t originate with the artist and doesn’t come with a copy of the art and an exclusive license to reproduce the art only with the sale of the NFT, then it’s meaningless.
Minting fraudulent NFTs may expose the minter and any future sellers to trademark and fraud charges. We won’t really know until people start getting sued.
IANAL, but I care a lot about getting copyright correct as a professional software engineer and FOSS enthusiast.
[
I was really referring to criticizing NFT’s for energy use; it’s a value judgement and not all NFT’s are of this specific nature if you find this particular one offensive . Some NFTs distribute more conventional artworks in a way that is at least superficially intended to allow the artist to exert greater control over the exploitation of the work. An artist that produces actual physical numbered prints also uses energy to do so and may ship them worldwide etc. That said I suspect the NFT has a more sinister real purpose and I understand the scale of power use may be much larger. Your use of Las Vegas as a counterpoint to cryptocurrency is kind of ironic, perhaps? Is gambling on green velvet more laudable than gambling on bitcoin? I don’t like cryptocurrency either, for reasons not limited to but including it’s energy use. My intention was more to express a hope that energy production will be cheaper, much less harmful environmentally, and more accessible to all so that people won’t feel compelled to ration it. Don’t forget, Mark’s post was about NFT’s not cryptocurrency, I agree with your remarks about the latter (and probably about the former, too)
No, the point is that Vegas uses a great deal of energy to run all those casinos and bright lights at night. Hence the comparison. Vegas itself is wasteful.
4 Likes
