Some four randos made an NFT platform that scraped up every song on Spotify (including music from big wigs like Disney, Nintendo, Marvel, and John Lennon) and turned it into an NFT without the original artists' permission, promising that buying the NFT will magically give a piece of the profits to the original creators
within 48hrs of news about this coming to light, entire PROs and distributors have gone bugfuck insane, have used their connections to stop the website being hosted on AWS, and are sending their lawyers in by parachute to sue the absolute living shit out of the people who tried to pull this scam off.
-
this completely ravaged any possible positive NFT sentiment from musicians.
-
the guys running that platform (who put their identities on the open on LinkedIn) responded with absolute out-of-touch posts on Twitter, acting like all of this is perfectly normal, they are getting carpet ratios.
https://mashable.com/article/hitpiece-nft-music
https://web.archive.org/web/20220202041329/https://mashable.com/article/hitpiece-nft-music
PS: you can repost this on KiA1 on Reddit I can read there but I won't post on Reddit.
Maybe someone can translate into boomer how verifying ownership of digital property matters outside of a specific walled garden. Or how digital goods can in any way be considered to be "unique".
Because the nature of digital content is that it can be infinitely and perfectly copied at effectively zero cost.
I could see the tech being useful as a sort of IP ownership verification system. In a way that's what's done with it now, except as far as I know there's no legal system recognized connection between IP and NFTs.
Say for example I take a photo of something interesting enough to sell, that's my IP. I sell it as an NFT. Really the only way I could make that actually possess the value of my IP is some sort of paper contract between myself and the NFT purchaser. At which point the NFT is still just a novelty, because the contract is the enforceable part.
Most don't even do that, it's just "hey we say this is unique art you own, but well you don't really own it, you just own this specific code we sold you."
You could extend it to property, legal titles. The main difference between that and the paper titles we use now is that it would be simpler to transfer ownership, cheaper to store and manage, and much more tamper proof.
The challenge is mostly acceptance from people as legitimate. It would have to be adopted by the legal system.
Genuine question: How is this any different than PDF documents and electronic signatures?