Think about it like music, does digital music have value? Do people still want to support their favorite musicians? Are there people out there that will just pirate it regardless? Sure, but there's also people that see the value in ownership and want to support specific people. When it comes to art, the scarcity of those ownership rights really increase the value. Most of the pieces I buy are somewhere between 1 of 1 and 1 of 3. That means that there are only going to ever be 1 or 3 people that can prove ownership of a specific piece of art, and it also supports the artists and keeps them producing more art. As the value of that art appreciates, I get ROI and the artist likely becomes more popular and can charge more in the future.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Ok, I'm starting to get it now, thanks for the explanation.
My next question is naturally - who polices it? I mean what if a more famous artist decides to steal or out right copy a less famous artist's works and does it regardless of it being on a blockchain. What if someone in a restaurant in Guatemala just decides to print something off and pop it on their wall, or display something on a digital photo frame?
This type of value relies on a trust based community and as long as there is money involved (or survival translatable tokens) this tight based community will always generate tiers of value and with it elitism. While it seems decentralized at first - it will create its own levels of prestige and find a way back to the root source of the problem of this present system (of which we're experiencing a collapse in real time).
I feel like the world is moving more away from what is real and into the unreal or virtual creating value out of literally nothing and this value translates into the real world. It's nothing different to what the banks have been doing with money for the last hundred years or so - but is that a good thing?
As for music, as a musician - I don't value digital music. You can pay me for an album on the street that costs ten dollars or you can pay me 4 cents to play it five times on Spotify. Yet with NFT, I could convince you that I only have five copies of something and only you have the rights to play it if you own one of those five - but - copies of it may circulate and no one will be held accountable - there will be no penalties for some joe blow playing it in some cafe - unless I have a bunch of hacker friends that could make this person's life a living hell, of which, the copier had no idea what they were doing and also this is a level of accountability only affordable to those with said badass hacker friends.
Will the hacker community stand up for every breach of ownership rights with NFT? Or just those of significant value?
As with everything - the perception of value or the hype created around something creates that value. And then that value is actually translatable to survival value. If value is generated perceptively then an army is needed to protect that value otherwise the value is obsolete.
Why do I bother engaging in Hive or other blockchains if my views on virtual value are as stated? Because I simply follow the perception of value in order to increase my chances of survival. The world's perception of value and the actual things that are required that are actually valuable for survival are completely disjointed.
As a result hundreds of thousands of dollars can be spent to purchase an NFT like the one above and yet poverty kills 800,000 people a year. Yet you can sell an NFT if you have the right reputation and have the right friends for enough money to go on a world trip 20 times to visit all the countries of all these impoverished places. It's truly bazaar.
Thanks for engaging with the comment. It's great to learn more about what's going on in Hive. I'm fascinated by this concept, I'm just yet to see its value personally - regardless of the perception of value and hype it has currently generated.
Piracy is a lost battle, there is no winning against people doing what they will do. As far as combatting forgeries and plagiarism, that's done by manually onboarding and reviewing each artist and then collaboratively policing the platform with the team and other artists that don't want to see their work devalued by allowing theft on the platform.
What isn't disputable when we bring NFTs into the equation is ownership. The artist mints a specific number of tokens which creates the scarcity of ownership and is the basis for valuation from buyers/investors. While anyone can hypothetically just right-click download any image or pirate any music or movie, they won't have the digital "certificate of authenticity" so to say.
Like imagine every poster and digital image of Starry Night. Obviously Van Gogh didn't make all of those, he made a single painting. The rest are all copies and forgeries. Which one is going to be more valuable? The original that is irreplaceable or the random posters and knickknacks that you can buy for a couple of bucks. There's a really good article by SuperRare that takes a much deeper dive into this topic if you want to check it out.
I disagree with this statement. If the idea of it can become popular and the veracity of this statement can be validated enough times in the right circles of people - then that is what creates the value of this way of thinking about art and that is what generates the value of an NFT. The concept itself is refutable.
But we're not living in a logical world... as much as we'd like to think.
I suppose I am going to go cover myself in mud in the lake and claim to be part of natural law. I don't want to be a part of the new world. 😂
I may not be on the same page in this reply or changing the subject. I watched this show on Netflix about tracing down originals and not counterfeits . Even if its a real Leonardo painting, it might not have value without documents. it could be counterfeit if no traceable document is found. Maybe it's all about tracing documents. A piece of art or music could be traced back to the date the blockchain was created. 500 years from now, a hypersuper quantum computer on a watch or ring could trace when the first earliest blockchain/ntf was created on an artwork and buy it for 899 billion dollars. Maybe you'll get 5% of 899 billion dollars on secondary sales when you bought an nft for one hive dollar, yesterday. I think the created dated blockchain has the final say so on who owns the artwork. something like that, right? I think an artwork needs to be documented by a very expensive art gallery to make it worth anything OR just for 1 hive, you can get the same thing but a million times better through nftshowroom.com, right?
I think the Beatles owed "happy birthday to you, happy birth ..." and Micheal Jackson bought the music. I might have read it's copy-right infringement to sing happy birthday ... over the air without permission. I think I'm really wrong about this but it does sound technically legal about happy birthday to ... owned by someone. so yeah, it would be rare to own a ummm, ummm a contract(?) on an artwork. I might have seen somewhere you could be part of owning a van Gogh art through ummm contracts or nft or cypto something. oh! a blockchain, I guess