[vmception]

It wouldn't?

I'm not sure the question? An NFT with no reliance on third party infrastructure, as described above, would have no ability for denial of service. More analogous to a non-digital art piece, where only third party individuals or companies that are digitally presenting an existing piece could be coerced by the arm of the state to stop displaying it via a DMCA request, but the existing piece still exists for anyone physically present to see. The NFT would just transcend geography in this case.

So a marketplace like OpenSea or a digital gallery could potentially receive a DMCA request. Galleries with unknown owners are likely going to become more prevalent.

It's up to the communities and potential purchasers to be discerning about what they interact with or buy, not really a standard to place on the technology thats a higher standard than other media. NFTs aren't here to solve plagiarism and unauthorized distribution. For a previous NFT work being re-released by someone else, consumers should check with the official community first before trying to acquire that contract. For an NFT work that wasn't previously issued (like a famous artist putting their stuff onchain suddenly now), they should do greater due diligence.

[peoplefromibiza]

so basically we should throw away millennia of history and trial and error to reboot our societies using a technology that doesn't even work without an internet connection and a very fast computing device?

[vmception]

the DMCA is 24 years old and its current use relies on an internet connection more heavily than onchain NFTs do. what stimuli were you replying to exactly, its not clear to me.

[peoplefromibiza]

the DMCA relies on something called a law and the power of the State to enforce such law, using the force if necessary.

your suggestion is to give up centuries of refinements on law making/enforcement and rely on personally checking every single trnsaction, because if you don't and are scammed, you're screwed and there's nothing you can do to get your money back.

I'm not sure it's an improvement.

[vmception]

This thread isn't about NFTs being an improvement over all copyrighted work, this thread is about NFTs being an improvement over other NFTs.

On the consumer side I wasn't suggesting anything, I said what they have to do in response to an already existing market with already existing transactions. This isn't about some future reality we imagine on an internet forum, this is about one you are simply not in.

If you think checking is too hard, then make a service that makes it easier to check and charge people for it, how often do you rule out business models that you personally identify, because thats what the market is saying to do.

[peoplefromibiza]

> If you think checking is too hard

I'm saying it is useless

Who's the authority that certifies that I am the real aithor of the NFT I'm selling?

And what the original author can do to prevent it?

absolutely nothing.

so it's completely useless.

you're buying random numbers produced by running some computing device at 100% for a few hours/days

would you buy the output of 'cat /dev/urandom'?

[miracle2k]

It's a spreadsheet that is a list of tokens created by artists, and the corresponding owner in the column to the right. That spreadsheet will survive the bankruptcy of any particular company, which gives the tokens a sense of permanence, and Benjaminian aura if you will, that you don't get from a ledger run by Google.

That is what is is, that is what people find it useful for. It is not supposed to do any other things.

[StanislavPetrov]

>your suggestion is to give up centuries of refinements on law making/enforcement

Some of us would use a different and much less flattering term than "refinement" to describe the centuries of "evolution" of law and law enforcement.

[peoplefromibiza]

> Some of us would use a different and much less flattering term than "refinement"

you can use whatever term you like, it's been a refinement process nonetheless.