[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.

[peoplefromibiza]

> It's a spreadsheet that is a list of tokens created by artists

or by people that found something slightly interesting and put it on the blockchain for money.

here's no assurance that some artist made it, there's no assurance the author is the one selling it, there's basically no assurance, apart that they are trying to trick people into thinking that it's an investment.

It's, in other words, a scam.

> That spreadsheet will survive the bankruptcy of any particular company

It won't.

Monuments in Rome have survived thousands of years and hundreds of wars.

98% of NFTs will last at max few months

> that you don't get from a ledger run by Google

at least I can sue Google if they publish on their ledger the hash of something I made and someone else sold without my permission...

> That is what is is, that is what people find it useful for

Please, don't try to sell me your snake oil.

That's the opposite of why people want them.

People absolutely don't care about the item, proof is that the majority of items sold as NFTs would never ever have a market outside of the speculative bubble (and in fact they never had one before).

[miracle2k]

> here's no assurance that some artist made it

Correct. I do not see how it follows that a NFT minted by the artist who made it is a scam.

> 98% of NFTs will last at max few months

You make this mistake because you think the url matters. It does not. It is the collectors job to ensure the art survives. Agreement on what the token represents, either ad-hoc or through a hash is enough.

> at least I can sue Google if they publish on their ledger the hash of something I made and someone else sold without my permission...

True.

> People absolutely don't care about the item, proof is that the majority of items sold as NFTs would never ever have a market outside of the speculative bubble (and in fact they never had one before).

There is a speculative bubble, but art will remain hard to sell the less it is a short-term speculative investment, but the creation of this previously non-existent market is indeed the contribution here. Without the market, the spreadsheet is not interesting.

[peoplefromibiza]

> It is the collectors job to ensure the art survives

it doesn't make any sense in this context

of course if I buy a painting i am responsible to maintain the painting, but the painting It's the item I bough!

here you're buying the URL, the only way to keep it working is taking over the maintenance of someone else's server, but only for that specific URL

Or I have to pay and there's no limit on how much it would cost

If i move the item to another URL, _it would be indistinguable from the billions of possible exact replicas_

hence NFTs provide no value at all

> There is a speculative bubble, but art will remain hard to sell the less it is a short-term speculative investment

art has a value if I can put it on display

[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.