[kranke155]

So you agree that DRM is a way to enforce scarcity in a post scarcity world ?

Your words - my software can be copied even though I sell it.

exactly the same with NFTs.

My Digital art can be copied even though I sell it as an NFT.

NFTs don’t enforce scarcity at all, not of the artwork itself.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> So you agree that DRM is a way to enforce scarcity in a post scarcity world ?

Yes, and one that is fundamentally flawed, and never should have been attempted in the first place in my opinion, but I think you'll agree that an NFT is not quite the same thing as DRM.

> Your words - my software can be copied even though I sell it. exactly the same with NFTs.

Ok, there's a semblance of an argument here I don't actually think is complete bullshit: If one can sell software without DRM, which can be copied by anyone, what exactly is being sold? To which I am forced to reply with things many NFT promoters say: supporting the developer, the concept of legitimacy, etc.

But, if that's all that an NFT is, then it is effectively just a donation. The problem is that NFTs claim to be much more than that, they claim to be a groundbreaking new technology that enables people to do things they never could do before[0], but that's obvious bullshit since people have been selling software in the same way I have sold software for 50 years.

If you're going to claim something like an NFT proving ownership, the only reason for that to have any value is if ownership confers some right or privilege that is otherwise lacking. For software, let's say it gives you access to direct support from the developer.

Again, the problem is that people already do that, and it doesn't require anything near as complicated as the entire NFT system! It's just a bog standard entry in a bog standard database that so and so owns a license. The decentralization buys nothing because if I stop supporting it no one will care that you have that license anyway. You could say that it allows someone to resell that license, but again we already do that today, and I could just as easily refuse to recognize a resold NFT as I could anyone's resold license because there's a history of ownership.

It really just looks like a giant scheme to try and convince people they're paying for something they're not.

[0] presumably not just having a new way to rip off rubes.

[kranke155]

I don’t know about other people and their misconceptions. I hope (and think) they are not as widespread as you think.

But yeah I think of NFTs as a novel way to support digital art. Not much else, just pay the artist. Same as buying a painting really, except you don’t really own the painting anymore.

The idea that buying art is anything BUT supporting an artist is pretty funny. It’s as if we’ve normalised art as either an investment or a museum that we can’t touch. Buying art was always meant to just let the artist do his thing!

Selling digital art before NFTs was a complete pain! Before them you had to go with an agency or gallery, they took a cut, they had to like your stuff. It was absolutely painful, full of gate keeping and bullshit I (and many others) hated. Now you just mint (hopefully on a low carbon chain) and off you go, you tweet about it, get some attention, make some money. It’s simple. The fact that there’s a secondary market for it, well there always was one for art.

It certainly attracted a bunch of rubes who buy ape JPEGs but there is an honest revolution in digital art happening right now. Look into FXhash on tezos, I’ve lost count of the amount of generative art on that market and it’s really really mind blowing. People are coding amazing stuff on there and selling it, something which used to be virtually impossible without a gallery and a rep and a bunch of nonsense.

I think an NFT is a form of DRM that doesn’t enforce scarcity - ie you own A license to that artwork but that doesn’t give you the right to it. That license can be bought and sold, maybe eventually that will have value (my personal favourite is that NFTs should allow you to remix the artwork into your own art, but who knows).

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> The idea that buying art is anything BUT supporting an artist is pretty funny.

Traditionally people bought art to possess it, look at it, and display it for others.

> Buying art was always meant to just let the artist do his thing!

No, that's kinda what patronage was all about. We have crowd sourced versions of that.

> Selling digital art before NFTs was a complete pain! Before them you had to go with an agency or gallery, they took a cut, they had to like your stuff.

That wasn't necessary though, you could sell art all sorts of ways. You could even just set up your own online store if you wanted. All NFTs seem to have done is take advantage of the hype-chasing and speculation crowds.

> there is an honest revolution in digital art happening right now

You've lost me here. Literally nothing about what you're describing requires NFTs other than convincing people to pay money for the NFTs by tangentially tying them to art. It is enabling artists to hack human psychology for money, not enabling brand new kinds of art.

[kranke155]

Hacking human psychology for money is really important, and it makes a difference in people’s life’s whether you can do it or not. That’s essentially it, we do agree, but fundamentally you think there’s something “wrong” with this. Artists don’t make millions of dollars generally so them making more money is good enough for me.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Yeah, I guess we are on the same page, and yes I do think there's something wrong with it, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that part.