Technology

60055 readers

3754 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

“Should art be regulated by the SEC?” NFT artists file lawsuit (arstechnica.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/technology

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (4 children)

wait, what are you even buying then?!

I thought (i) at least served as a proof of ownership for (ii)...

[–] ocassionallyaduck 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Nope.

This is why anyone not huffing paint has stayed far away from NFTs.

[–] AlotOfReading 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, the "non-fungibility" simply means that anyone who creates an NFT with the same link will be distinct from your link to the image, even if the actual URL is the same. Both NFTs can also be traced back to when they were created/minted because they're on a blockchain, a property called provenance. If the authentic tokens came from a well known minting, you can establish that your token is "authentic" and the copy token is a recreation, even if the actual link (or other content) is completely identical.

Nothing about having the "authentic" token would give you actual legal rights though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

yeah, I understand the tech far better than I understand the law. I thought they legally counted as a contract, i guess they're not even that.

[–] General_Effort 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

For a contract transferring property, you need 2 parties: One offering and the other accepting. Having knowledge of a cryptographic key implies none of that.

You could get something like this done by transferring the asset to a reputable trustee. The trustee - a law firm, bank, or such - checks that the paperwork is in order and it has the necessary rights. It binds itself contractually to convey some benefit - eg a revocable copyright license - to whoever can show that they have a certain cryptographic key/control of a wallet.

The firm should regularly check if the beneficiary still holds the key. It might get lost or forgotten, after all. The possibility of losing access to the asset by theft or accident is the only thing that involving NFTs add to such a scheme, so one might as well lean into it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

At best you're buying into a collective agreement of ownership among those also participating in the NFT ecosystem. You own a thing because a large enough group of people agree you own it and respect the authority of that token.

At worst you've been scammed and are trying to convince yourself the above is true and that said "large enough group" includes anyone at all capable of enforcing said ownership. Spoilers: it does not.