But it's even more fascinating than that. As the anarchist adage goes: "property is theft". NFTs are perhaps a great exemplification of that.
Basically, for a particular kind of private property to exists, there must be a broad consensus that something *can* be "owned", there must be some kind of record of ownership", and there must be some enforcement of that "ownership".
NFTs pretend to provide a record of "ownership" for something that never really had one: digital art.
Now, #NFT bros are trying… 2/?
…to create this broad consensus that on-line images can be "owned" in any real sense of the word. They seem to understand it not the way copyright understands it, but as a more "this specific copy of an image" kind of way. This doesn't make any sense, but who's to stop them?
Once they have that "broad consensus", they will try to find ways to enforce that "ownership".
History of private ownership of things, unfolding in front of our very eyes!
Important caveat: I am *not* saying this is all part of some master plan.
It's just a whole lot of people who don't understand technology, don't understand IP (imaginary property) law, but "invested their money" and feel this entitles them to things.
Like demanding random people don't right-click-save on on-line images. And soon, probably demanding the Internet Police to stop them right-clickers.
tl;dr #NFT bros are entitled pricks who demand that their misguided understanding of technology is shared by everyone, just because they put their money in this crap.
Take-away: this is laughable, but also dangerous -- they must not be allowed to normalize shunning the "right clickers" or demanding NFTs are treated as "proof of ownership" or whatever.
If you enjoyed this thr^Wrant on NFTs, please support an artist with a donation or a commission.
Artists need and deserve your support.
One reason why bullcrap like #NFT gets traction is because coinbros can *exploit* that. They are using artists in need as poster-children for their schemes.
Supporting artists directly sucks air out of NFTs and other such hare-brained technosolutionist "ideas".
A: An #NFTOwningDemocracy
You know where this ultimately goes if left unchecked, and linked to a CentralBankDigitalCurrency (#CBDC). It means #LandTitles on a blockchain and #cronyists close to the moneyPrinting being able to print themselves into #landOwnership *that can never be challenged by any government*.
@rysiek Also works as a hiring/interviewing strategy.
* "Do you own any NFTs?"
* "Did you do any work on 'crypto' or 'NFTs'?"
If either is yes ... 🚩
@tbr oooh next time I am managing a team (Dog forbid...), I might actually steal your idea.
Hope you didn't mint an NFT for it!
@raboof of course. You can create your own blockchain even, as @makeworld did:
And what gets saved on the blockchain is up to you, too. Not enough space for a base64 of the whole image, usually, so often it's a... link. Which leads to hilarity:
It's just silly on every level.
@rysiek I think NFTs are stupid. You can't own "digital art" like you own IRL paintings. It could work if it's a game thing or tradable, otherwise it's just a way to burn your money.
You can take a screenshot and then they can try to get you to delete it but it won't work.
The nft "owners" have purchased an aura of authenticity, ala Walter Benjamin, but they have no particular rights over the image itself.
This could be potentially damaging to artists who are under the impression that they have surrendered zero rights of any kind.
I hope that if a judge does end up ruling their judgement is that you can't buy and sell parcels of nothing, but I fear that there may be president in financial derivatives.
I don't know what those are and I don't want to know.
Its a sick joke that wealthy people have so much money they're sinking it in pretend assets while the world is literally starting to burn. NFT owners and coinbros against the wall first
Actual copyright is worth respecting, I think - pay the artist for their work! - but so many people don't understand even the basics of copyright.
@varve copyright in digital era is a broad, complicated subject.
It's what enables CC By-SA and GPL/AGPL (that is: copyleft) licenses to exist and be effective.
On the other hand, in its current form, copyright *creates* the problem of orphaned works, forces artists into the hands of huge gatekeepers, and locks culture down under corporate control.
Rights of *individual* artists need to be respected, but copyright needs to be reformed and brought into the 21st century.
@rysiek @varve I think it's dangerous to call these things "rights." It's like that staged event back in March of 1929, where women were hired to pretend to be feminist protestors, while prominently smoking "torches of freedom." (Tobacco usage for women of course skyrocketed.) We don't need to grant artists the right to hurt themselves and others. They'll still keep drawing.
@rysiek @varve QuestionAuthority actually did a spot on this last week; highlighting that copyright in the way the UK/USA came up with it is all about protecting the rights of publishers, from other publishers. Nothing to do with artists, or consumers.
While European *moral rights* are more focused on the artist.
It's worth considering if copyright itself has some serious problems of misapplication.
Remember, the first version of copyright law, the Licensing of the Press Act (1662) gave the effective power to the Stationers' Company. That is, publishers.
Copyright was always about publishers. Artists were used as a pretext, and given mainly and almost only the rights that were necessary for them to be able to effectively sell to publishers, in a way enforceable by publishers.
@rysiek @doctormo true enough! If copyright is the right to make and sell copies, but the only ones who have the tools and ability to make copies are publishing companies, that's who benefits. Electronic copies are easy for anyone to make, and yeah, that shakeup isn't nearly over yet. Even physical copies are getting easier with digital typesetting and layout.
If you want that to happen, support people who are pushing for it. This includes @pluralistic , @juliareda , and anyone you can find who has that on the agenda. And push back strongly against copyright maximalists.
@lienrag thanks! Not my idea though. the earliest source I can find is this:
@rysiek Oh, I'm sure there are "master plans" going on, mostly plans for Disney style corruption of legal codes via armies of lawyers, just to secure a hegemony for whoever is funding the planners. I guess it's true the vast majority of the people bringing about this terrible future are just clueless, but I don't think they'd be clueless in the same way without the deliberate misinformation and propaganda of a few.
Now we have Webassembly to obfuscate client-side code, HTML Canvas to create opaque content, and things are just a small step away from being closed down inside the web browser running on your own hardware.
Example, I can't copy/paste small sections from the kindle app. I also can't print more than the current page. Also, what appears as text isn't encoded text: it's glyphs rendered as an image on screen.
Don't even get me started on reasonable access for the disabled with screen readers. Ugh.
@rysiek I do wonder if the initial screen grab is fake, I mean is anyone REALLY that dumb? I mean, probably yes but I tend to question this kind of thing. I just right clicked me a rare new profile pic. I'll see where this wave takes me.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!