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.
Exactly this. NFTs only work as digital title, and only when there's some enforcement mechanism of that title.
For example, you could use NFTs with cars and boats and houses, but the government has no interest in handing over exclusivity of that role.
There are a whole bunch of categories of NFT types where there's physical goods, no physical goods, digital only etc, but all of these historically come with the actual legal rights to whatever the NFT represents.
The digital only goods went stupid, when people started selling computer generated pics of thousands of goofy things. There's no enforcement mechanism for your exclusivity. You bought the rights to the pic, but anyone else who wants the pic can literally copy it from your blockchain record and there's nothing you can do to stop them. And because there are now increasing more millions of these stupid pics being generated with the tiniest of variations, there's not even scarcity anymore.
Then came the next wave... people were already doing it, but CNN blew it up when headlines revealed they were selling lootboxes of NFTs of public domain images. The NFT can't include exclusive rights to the image because there are none. There's not even storage of the image on the blockchain. It's literally just a blockchain record that has a text link in it, and you own that record. Anyone can go download and share the pictures from anywhere. Hell, if the picture is still up at the link on your NFT, anyone can go there and legally grab the pic. It's just fucking stupid.
True, but it would be genius if it was adopted. Imagine handling payment through a digital contract. Both sides agree, and bam, money and title changes hands. There is nothing to dispute. As you said, it doesn't mean anything unless it is adopted by the legal system so that you have a third party enforcement mechanism.