[sneak]

They didn't buy the art, they bought an NFT that represents a hash of the file containing all of the art in question.

This doesn't convey any property rights to the art's copyright, unless the purchase also included those separately from the NFT, which, of course, happens all of the time without the NFT silliness and doesn't require NFTs at all.

[techdragon]

Wait... the only way this NFT stuff made any sense to me was if they were actually selling the copyrights via NFT... this was actually just a $69 million version of calling “dibs” like some kind of schoolchild? WTF!

[Lazare]

Yes.

Buying an NFT isn't like buying a piece of art you can put on your wall, it's like buying a signed, numbered, limited edition card that has the address of where the actual owner has the art on his wall.

...except the address might be wrong. Or become wrong when the actual art changes hands, or the owner dies. Also nothing stops the artist from making a new print run of the cards. Or someone who isn't the artist making a print run of the cards.

But I mean, even if Beeple sells another thousand NFTs referencing the same artwork, and even if this NFT quickly ends up with a broken URL, and even if the buyer of the NFT didn't end up with any ownership rights to the artwork itself...

...at least they can feel pleased they bought the first NFT issued by Beeple with this particular URL on it. That's gotta be worth something! (...$69 million, apparently...)

[mavhc]

Like bitcoin, the only way it makes sense is if you can trick someone else into buying it off you for more money later, thus you're incentivised to promote the idea everywhere.

[BTCOG]

Wrong. Don't bring Bitcoin into this. This is an Ethereum scam thing.

[ric2b]

Or gold, or dollars, or art, etc.

[mavhc]

Gold has a use, dollars are backed by a government. Owning original art is bragging/speculation. I read that the very expensive art that people buy isn't even hung on their walls to look at, they get a copy made for people to see, and put the original in a vault.

[ric2b]

> Gold has a use

But I won't be happy if people stop buying gold and all I can do with it is sell it to some electronics manufacturer for 1% of the price I paid for it.

> dollars are backed by a government

Sounds great, what can I do if people stop accepting dollars in trade?

> Owning original art is bragging/speculation.

Agreed, so nothing new.

[codeulike]

Its somewhat like paying a lot of money for a rare vinyl record when the mp3 can be downloaded for free

[acdha]

Even that’s not conveying how silly this is: in your analogy you’d at least have the option to natter on about how the vinyl sound was so much warmer and truer to the artist’s vision, as audiophiles have done for decades.

This is more or less you saying you paid for a receipt showing you paid to have a hash of the same MP3 everyone else is listening to.

[rsynnott]

It's one step beyond that; it's paying for some people on the internet to _pretend_ that you own the record. There is no actual literal transfer of ownership at all.

[nonameiguess]

It's paying a lot of money for an unenforceable extra-legal claim to ownership of a slip of paper with directions to a building that may have once contained a not-at-all rare copy of a song that was only ever recorded as an mp3 to begin with.

[beckingz]

It's more like paying a lot of money for a mp3 recording of a rare vinyl record.

[mc32]

It’s like buying a digital photo of lottery ticket that’s already been played but played by a celebrity, let’s say.

[sneak]

Buying an NFT (by itself) does not make you party to a legal contract or agreement, which is the only way to transfer ownership rights in IP. It just makes you the owner of the NFT.

This is why you see people making the comparison to sports trading cards. You're not buying the person, you're buying the piece of cardboard.

[Hjfrf]

It's more like buying a receipt, not the good itself.

They can display the receipt but have no more right to the art than you or me.

[tim333]

I think in this case they did get property rights:

>NFT carries no rights, express or implied, other than property rights for the lot (specifically, digital artwork tokenized by the NFT.. https://www.christies.com/pdf/onlineonly/ECOMMERCE%20CONDITI...

So no rights apart from the property rights (Christies T&Cs)

[sneak]

The lot was the NFT. I don't believe that the text you quoted indicates that they get ownership of the copyright of the art. The art wasn't auctioned, the NFT was.

[tim333]

The catalogue says "EVERYDAYS: THE FIRST 5000 DAYS will be delivered directly from Beeple to the buyer, accompanied by a unique NFT"

So presumably an image file and the NFT. Bit vague on copyright.