# NFTs



## Foxbat (Nov 24, 2021)

I’ve been trying to understand these Non Fungible Tokens so here’s what I’ve learned.
Non fungible essentially means that it can’t be replaced with another identical item. It’s one of a kind.

Take, for example, a Batman action figure. Let’s just say that it’s the only one in existence. You might decide to trade it for a Robin figure. but that’s not going to fly in the world of NFT because it’s not the same. If there are thousands of Robin figures but only one Batman, it’s not a fair or equitable trade. A collector would pay a much higher price for the lone Batman figure than for a Robin so you  wouldn’t even consider trading your Batman for one (unless you were a complete idiot).

If you own the Mona Lisa, then you have something that’s non fungible. There could be prints of the Mona Lisa but only one original.

But here’s where it gets a bit messy as far as I’m concerned. Let’s just say, for argument’s sake that the Mona Lisa was originally created as a digital image. There would still only be one NFT original but digital copies, as we know, are exactly the same as the original. So, if I showed somebody my copy of the Mona Lisa and they said ‘Ah! But it’s not the original.’ I’d reply that I didn’t care because I didn’t have to pay millions for it and it’s exactly the same as the NFT version.


Now, let’s take this a bit further. The artist retains copyright and reproduction rights. Fair enough? There seems that there’s nothing to stop our digital Da Vinci from creating more Mona Lisas, each with its own NFT. Of course, the more he creates, the lower its value will be. But imagine being the poor schmuck who shells out for the first one and later finds that it’s not as unique as he first thought? He might as well saved his money and gone with a standard non-NFT digital print. Of course, NFT can apply to many things..like that first ever tweet or even a music file.

 In essence (as far as I can understand it), what you’re getting is the new age equivalent of an autographed copy of something. We see it all the time in book publishing where the author will sign a limited number of copies. The same could happen with NFTs.

With ebooks, I think it will only be a matter of time before authors offer NFT versions of their work in place of or alongside the autographed printed version.

So what have I learned? Not a lot. You see, I’ll never have the amount of silly money needed to partake in these digital shenanigans.


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 24, 2021)

Foxbat said:


> In essence (as far as I can understand it), what you’re getting is the new age equivalent of an autographed copy of something.


Not even that, I'd say. Effectively you're just getting bragging rights (and the chance of making a profit later).


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 24, 2021)

Foxbat said:


> With ebooks, I think it will only be a matter of time before authors offer NFT versions of their work in place of or alongside the autographed printed version.



Your a bit behind the times @Foxbat  ....









						NFTs for Indie Authors
					

What are NFTs and why should an indie author care? This is the Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi) guide to NFTs for indie authors.




					selfpublishingadvice.org
				




Actually for an author I think there might be significant advantages - if resell 'commission' is part of the NFT contract for example or perhaps if you only sold your e-book output as NFT's then any pirating would at least be easily found. (i.e. if a copy of your work was not on the blockchain then it is pirated.)

And readers may like NFT e-books, as they would be getting part of a limited number of copies of the work and would have the ability to resell it if they wished. Of course the value of most authors works would, I guess, go down over time, but there are of course cases of first edition real books going for thousands*. Wasn't one of the Harry Potter first editions recently sold in auction for tens of thousands of pounds?

The problem with NFT's in general at the moment, apart from the stupid waste of energy in blockchain tech, is that virtually every one is in it to make money only: buy low, sell high. And a lot of people are creating them to pump and dump to try and make a fortune.

I don't see it as being anything to do with art or creativity. I forget which economist said this but I remember it as something like: "Capitalism is the process of humans attaching a monetary value to every object and process in the universe." In this case we are assigning or creating a value to something that is fundamentally close to worthless - because we can.

============================================

* okay tiny compared to the actual number of books and authors!


----------



## Dave (Nov 24, 2021)

Thanks @Foxbat for explaining this. I had no idea what an NFT was. I read in the news that Tarantino is in dispute with Miramax over Pulp Fiction NTFs and couldn't search for what that actually meant. 

Edit: Although it still isn't that clear. The NFTs could be action figures, still photos, a directors cut, a music score, or all of those. 

2nd Edit: Apparently, it's sections of screenplay with a special voice-over. Tarantino NFT Collection


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Nov 24, 2021)

Dave said:


> Thanks @Foxbat for explaining this. I had no idea what an NFT was. I read in the news that Tarantino is in dispute with Miramax over Pulp Fiction NTFs and couldn't search for what that actually meant.
> 
> 2nd Edit: Apparently, it's sections of screenplay with a special voice-over. Tarantino NFT Collection



As I understand it, The dispute is over who owns the rights to the NFT, as NFT's weren't "a thing" when the contracts for PF were drawn up, so Tarantino assumed he could just go ahead and sell them.

The biggest advantage of NFT's is for money launderers, so I fully suspect that the gov will be cracking down on them at one point.

I own two NFT's via the infamous right click -> save as method. Seriously, though, I see their only real utility in terms of rights ownership, a lump sum patreon to support artists or to prove origination. Buying and selling NFT's has no other real use other than to wash money,

I have a business idea for writers and NFT's though, I'd set it up right now if the gas fees weren't ridiculously expensive.


----------



## tinkerdan (Nov 24, 2021)

Most print on demand books are limited NFTs.
What I mean is that when someone orders a book Amazon or other bookseller will order either one or XX number printed; depending on how optimistic they are about selling them.

In the back of the book is a stamp from the printer that usually--but not always identifies where and who printed the book with the date that it came off the press. So there might be one with that date and printer and location or a dozen, but usually not much more than that. Once those are sold then you get an order and the same thing happens all over but it might be a different printer in a different location and of course a different date.

The single copies would be the closest to a true NFT.

Also the review copies an author orders and, with amazon, are marked with a watermark on the cover, are NFTs.

However the real NFTs are the ebook.
The place you generate an ebook has the original; such places as Amazon--Smashwords--xLibris--etc.
They sell copies and allow partner sellers to sell copies. But one of them usually holds the original.


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 27, 2021)

Was watching Click (BBC News tech programme) and there was an article on selling NFTs on bits of forest. I couldn't find the news article but, essentially, you get a GPS position when you buy the NFT.

I had a search and found this








						Buy NFTs To Protect Wild Nature
					

NFT Purchases of Giraffe Pattern Data Supports Wild Nature.



					www.wildnatureinstitute.org
				




I think it's the tech equivalent of 'adopt a rhino'


----------



## Dave (Nov 27, 2021)

Foxbat said:


> essentially, you get a GPS position when you buy the NFT.


That all started with buying parts of the Moon or of Mars. I couldn't understand how you could buy a piece of the Moon from someone who had never been there, never mind the fact that they didn't own what they were selling.

Actually, it probably began much earlier - with George Parker selling the Brooklyn Bridge


----------



## AlexH (Nov 27, 2021)

I was interested in NFTs for my photography. I was concerned about the environmental impact to start with, but after reading around, the best info I've seen about NFTs is this Twitter thread:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1445795667826208770


----------



## CupofJoe (Dec 14, 2021)

I can appreciate the technology and the uses it might have behind NFTs but who would pay $3000 for a "Bored Ape"?








						Bored Ape NFT accidentally sells for $3,000 instead of $300,000
					

A "fat fingered" typing error seems to have cost an NFT dealer more than $250,000.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				



Let alone $300,000!


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 14, 2021)

No sympathy for that greedy fool.


----------



## Laura R Hepworth (Dec 14, 2021)

My brother keeps telling me that I should make NFTs of my artwork, but there's just something about the whole crypto currency thing that I find rather creepy. It just feels like pretending monopoly money is somehow real and of great value and, thus, gambling with real money to buy into the fake money and, at any time, the bubble could pop and you've just lost everything you 'invested' into this illusion of value. I really don't think it's for me.


----------



## Karn's Return (Dec 16, 2021)

Huh...all this time and all these economies, simply to go back to the barter system...


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Dec 16, 2021)




----------



## Bren G (Dec 23, 2021)

I wrote - *The Case for NFTS* - on my blog back in March. I posit that they are here to stay but won't hit the mainstream until the crypto circus matures. Another major hurdle are 'gas fees' which is effectively the amount you have to pay to execute a contract on the blockchain (effectively mint the artwork or media so you have undisputed ownership of it). These are high. For example, I was to be charged $300 to $400 USD for a small .jpg cartoon of my dog, so I told them they were barking up the wrong tree!


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Dec 24, 2021)

For about six or seven years I've been selling one-off hand-made box sets of music by my solo project Blue Lily Commission. I've also sold box sets of my old band Mooch, and by me as a solo artist. Judging by the comments above, these count as NFTs. (You can see photos of these creations on the BLC facebook page.) Glad to know I was ahead of the curve... 

But I suppose Jean-Michel Jarre was ahead of all of us...








						Musique pour Supermarché - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 24, 2021)

The big problem for me (and why I will never pay to own an NFT) is that they are essentially meaningless. Ownership does not equate to control (unlike the number of music artists selling their back catalogue to music publishers and effectively giving up control).

As I’ve said before, there’s nothing to stop an unscrupulous artist from selling a single NFT for £10000 and then later, selling multiple NFTs (through maintaining copyright and duplication rights) for the same piece of work at £1.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Dec 24, 2021)

Emperor's new clothes...


----------



## CupofJoe (Dec 24, 2021)

I think NFTs are close to being a con game or at least the Tulip Mania in the 17C. I don't trust the hype in the least.
The technology behind it is interesting. The first NFT would always be the first NFT, no matter how many copies were made after that. The blockchain technology behind it would prove that.  It would have a rarity value like a galley proof or first edition of a book or white label pressing of a record. Those are considered more collectable to some because of their [near] uniqueness. Now if the "it" of the NFT is worth £10k or 10p? That is up to the market. 
For me, it is closer to 10p and I think I'm being generous.


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 24, 2021)

I wonder if VAT will ever be placed on NFTs, or maybe an energy tax considering how much energy blockchains consume?


----------



## Artoriarius (Dec 27, 2021)

NFTs are, in my opinion, just another example of how bad—in a moral sense—crypto can be. Even without the possibility of laundering money (as postulated in the twitter chain above), and ignoring the usual problems with cryptocurrency (environmental impact of mining, lack of stability/regulation, etc.), there’s the very real fact that a lot of NFTs amount to art theft—a person with no relation to the original artist sells an NFT of a digital work, which does real harm to the artist because it drives down demand for the original work—meaning they can’t get as much for what they put actual time and effort into because. As far as I’ve seen, very few artists have actually benefited from NFTs—it’s far easier to find artists complaining that their work’s been stolen and how hostile the NFT markets are to them trying to take the stolen art down.

And what does the buyer get? Bragging rights, basically. They have no control over what they’ve bought; they just get to _say_ they own it. Which, I mean, I can say I own the moon, print out a piece of paper saying I do, but would anybody take me seriously if I did? It’s not even selling the Brooklyn Bridge; it’s selling the _address_ of the Brooklyn Bridge, with a lot of tech-based buzzwords to cover up the scam. I’d feel sorry for the buyers, if they weren’t being driven by their own gullibility and greed, and if there weren’t real people trying to make a living losing money from the theft.


----------



## Wayne Mack (Dec 27, 2021)

NFTs are simply a matter of creating scarcity in cases where the manufacturing costs of a good is low (or in the case of digital media, near zero). It is the same principle as signed and numbered copies of an author's book are considered more valuable than mass produced copies.


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Dec 27, 2021)

Wayne Mack said:


> creating scarcity



Scarcity overcome:


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Dec 27, 2021)

Seriously, though - this *might* be a gamechanger on account of how low the gas fees are:









						First NFT Minted on DOGE Blockchain; Dogecoin Low Minting Fees Could Be A Game Changer
					

DOGE has proven its strength throughout this year. With that, the first-ever NFT was minted on the Dogecoin blockchain system by someone with the pseudonym Inevitable360 on Twitter.




					www.itechpost.com


----------



## Artoriarius (Dec 28, 2021)

Wayne Mack said:


> NFTs are simply a matter of creating scarcity in cases where the manufacturing costs of a good is low (or in the case of digital media, near zero). It is the same principle as signed and numbered copies of an author's book are considered more valuable than mass produced copies.


Near zero? Any decent work is going to take significant time and effort to make. That’s a cost, right there—the time spent making it could have been used doing something else (opportunity cost), and of course there’s the cost of learning how to make it (schooling, practice, etc) and getting the tools to make it (in the case of digital art, the software and computer equipment necessary). Yes, one can make theoretically infinite copies, but A) in practice, an infinite number of people aren’t going to want it, and B) most people are actually honest enough to pay a reasonable price for the work, even if there’s a way to get it for free—that’s why works that are pay-what-you-want still make money, and why artists can release music on YouTube and art on DeviantArt and still make money selling it.

Another point is that an author’s signature is something physically intrinsic to that copy of the book—the signature is part of that copy, and is (rather obviously) not present on non-signed books; a NFT version of a work is entirely identical to a non-NFT version—the only way to prove that yours is unique is to produce external documentation (electronic documentation, sure, but still external to the work itself). That’s a major and crucial difference between signed books and NFTs. It should also be pointed out that some signed books _aren’t_ worth much—some authors will sign any damn copy they can get their hands on, and so there’s more signed books than people who want a signed book. (I’ve dabbled in bookselling, and it really is a letdown to find a signed book and find that it’s not worth any more than a non-signed copy.) Given that NFTs don’t have any difference between the NFT and non-NFT copies, that’s a rather more apt comparison, if we really want to compare books and NFTs.

In the end, NFTs make it _harder_ to sell digital works—again, there’s a lot of art theft associated with them, and that drives the price down for the original work, meaning the artist gets less compensation for their time and effort. Glorious visions of artificial scarcity don’t help the artist who’s going broke because some jerk is stealing their work and selling it as NFTs. Even honest NFTs are worth less because of this—when there’s no way to distinguish between “documentation proving you own this from the real artist” and “documentation proving you own this from a con artist,” the value of _any_ documentation is less.


----------



## Wayne Mack (Dec 28, 2021)

Artoriarius said:


> In the end, NFTs make it _harder_ to sell digital works


I believe that we may be making the same argument. I suggest that making something harder to sell is equivalent to creating a scarcity.

Regarding costs, I should have been more explicit, but I separate the cost of design from the cost of manufacture. I define the cost of design to be the cost and effort expended to create the first copy of an item, while the cost of manufacture to be the cost and effort to create subsequent copies. A great deal of cost, time, and effort goes into creating the first recording of a song. After it is recorded, the cost to duplicate it is extremely low as is the cost to distribute it. Free or very low cost copies of music are available to me via over the air radio, streaming services, and online audio and video broadcasts.

I agree that my analogy between an NFT and a signed book is imperfect, but I will argue that the increase in value for the book is not due to the book itself, but rather due to the signature and its scarcity. Likewise, the value associated associated with an NFT is not due to the item to which it is attached, but due to the scarcity of the digital code of the NFT. 

The divergence in the cost for an initial copy and that of additional cost has been a long running problem, preceding the internet age. My intent is merely to show that there is some rationality behind the usage of NFTs.


----------



## Fiberglass Cyborg (Dec 29, 2021)

Welp, started seeing NFT scam ads on Facebook. They have officially arrived in the scumosphere.


----------



## Artoriarius (Dec 29, 2021)

Wayne Mack said:


> I believe that we may be making the same argument. I suggest that making something harder to sell is equivalent to creating a scarcity.
> 
> Regarding costs, I should have been more explicit, but I separate the cost of design from the cost of manufacture. I define the cost of design to be the cost and effort expended to create the first copy of an item, while the cost of manufacture to be the cost and effort to create subsequent copies. A great deal of cost, time, and effort goes into creating the first recording of a song. After it is recorded, the cost to duplicate it is extremely low as is the cost to distribute it. Free or very low cost copies of music are available to me via over the air radio, streaming services, and online audio and video broadcasts.
> 
> ...


To an extent, we’re agreeing that it’s harder to sell, but where we diverge is that my perspective is that NFTs drive down the value of the original work and divert sales from the original work (which is a bad thing), you appear to be saying that NFTs make a particular copy of the work rarer and therefore more valuable (which is a good thing). As well, I have to consider the art theft aspect—from what I’ve seen, NFTs are proving a useful vessel for scammers to engage in art theft, profiting off of the artificial scarcity at the expense of the original artist—, which raises the question of the _intrinsic_ value of NFTs in general—if you can’t tell whether an NFT was sold by the original artist or a scammer, then what good is the NFT?

There’s still a major difference between NFTs and signed books. While a signature is indeed the _valuable_ part of the book, it’s still _part_ of the book; you cannot remove it from the book without damaging the book. With NFTs, the value is associated with the blockchain proving its authenticity; without that, the NFT is just another digital image, and because it is not actually _part_ of the NFT—the image is the same regardless of the blockchain or not—it can be quite easy to separate the NFT from the blockchain (simply transfer it to somebody else without recording it in the blockchain). A signed book is still a signed book, even if I don’t have a receipt!

(In fairness, what might be a more apt metaphor than signed books is antiques: a significant portion of the value of an antique is documentation proving its authenticity—most usually, sales receipts and documented inheritances going back to the original manufacturer, or at least that it’s an old item.* However, false documentation doesn’t become incorporated into the economic system and there’s significant difficulty in creating a fake antiquity (there have even been occasions where forgeries have been good enough that the forger gets recognised for their artistic merit—after all, you have to be a damn good artist to fool large numbers of people into thinking your paintings were done by, say, Peter Paul Rubens), whereas copying a digital work is easy, and with how blockchain works, you can’t easily revoke the NFT’s authentication—the blockchain would fall apart if you could.)

* You might recognise this documentation chain with antiquities as being the exact same thing as a blockchain, but on paper. It’s not common outside antiquities, because most things don’t _need_ a blockchain; people generally don’t care about the history of the money they got paid beyond their immediate employer or the pedigree of the used toaster they got from Ebay. It’s only when the value comes from the history—or when there’s a lot of buzzwords and memes obscuring the fact that it’s just another wheel, but, like, _online,_ man—that it actually matters.


----------



## Wayne Mack (Dec 29, 2021)

Artoriarius said:


> To an extent, we’re agreeing that it’s harder to sell, but where we diverge is that my perspective is that NFTs drive down the value of the original work and divert sales from the original work (which is a bad thing), you appear to be saying that NFTs make a particular copy of the work rarer and therefore more valuable (which is a good thing).


The optimization of aggregate price is the rationale behind the supply-demand theory. If one reduces the supply, then the individual item price will increase. After a point, the decrease in quantity of items offsets the increase in price and the aggregate declines. This is at odds with the assertion that restricting availability of a few copies of a good reduces the price of the remaining copies of the good. Furthermore, the challenge with digital goods is that the cost to reproduce them is essentially zero.

I agree that the signed book analogy is imperfect, but I suggest the following thought experiment. Assume that there is a signed book that is considered valuable enough to go to auction. Suppose that the auction house removes the signed page from the book and auctions off the book and the signed page separately. Which would command the higher selling price? Would the individual selling prices be any where near comparable?


----------



## Artoriarius (Dec 30, 2021)

Wayne Mack said:


> The optimization of aggregate price is the rationale behind the supply-demand theory. If one reduces the supply, then the individual item price will increase. After a point, the decrease in quantity of items offsets the increase in price and the aggregate declines. This is at odds with the assertion that restricting availability of a few copies of a good reduces the price of the remaining copies of the good. Furthermore, the challenge with digital goods is that the cost to reproduce them is essentially zero.
> 
> I agree that the signed book analogy is imperfect, but I suggest the following thought experiment. Assume that there is a signed book that is considered valuable enough to go to auction. Suppose that the auction house removes the signed page from the book and auctions off the book and the signed page separately. Which would command the higher selling price? Would the individual selling prices be any where near comparable?


Neither book nor page would sell as high as they would have together. The book is damaged goods, and no collector will want it—quite possibly nobody will want it, if there are undamaged copies available (seriously, if I come upon a book missing a page while I’m looking at books to sell, I don’t even bother to list it—even if it’s otherwise As New, that missing page downgrades it all the way to Poor condition, and unless you’re selling a lot of used books (enough to make money off of the quantity you’re selling), it’s just not worth selling); the signed page was part of the book, and while still somewhat valuable, its value is diminished—it is only as valuable as any other signature of the author. Most collectors will want a _signed book_, not just a signature; it would only be the few really big fans of the author in question that would want the signature alone—and for most authors, there aren’t enough fans of that calibre to justify anything near the price of the signed book. The value has been damaged by the dissociation. The digital work is as valuable when dissociated from the blockchain as it would have been never having been dissociated; the same is not true for a damaged book. At any rate, the signed book metaphor isn’t important; this is:

The profit from an NFT which has been stolen from the original artist is not going to the original artist. They see not a penny of it. People who might have bought a copy of the original from them can be distracted by the NFT and not realise they’re paying for a stolen good; and the person selling the NFT has no reason not to sell as many copies of it as they can—after all, if it stops paying out, they can just steal something else. The original artist loses out, even if in aggregate more money is being made from the work, because they have fewer people buying what they’re actually selling, the lower demand means lower prices, so they get less for what they do sell, and of course they’re not getting anything for what the thief is selling. And because NFTs are unregulated, because there are no consequences for stealing art in this manner, they have proven a very good vehicle for digital art theft—enough that it’s becoming a problem for the actual artists actually making the art.

It also becomes a problem for honest NFTs sold by the real artists, because there is no way to tell the difference between an NFT sold by the original artist, and an NFT sold by an art thief—not without already knowing it’s been stolen from an outside source. An author’s signature can be judged, on its own merits, and determined whether it’s authentic or not. The same cannot be said for a blockchain. The part of the value of the NFT which lies in the certification that it is indeed a unique piece from the original artist is _less_, because it does not truly test for whether it is a unique piece from the original artist—all it will tell you is that it was sold on the blockchain. Therein lies the inherent flaw in the system.

In short, the problem is the art theft, not just that the artist isn’t going to make as much selling elsewhere; the problem is that many artists are finding somebody else selling their art, and are understandably and justifiably upset by it; the problem is that the blockchain says nothing about the legitimacy of the seller, only the manner of sale; the problem is that as the theft goes unchecked, honest NFTs become worth less than they otherwise would be; the problem is that NFTs are far too susceptible a vehicle for thieves and con artists out to make a quick buck, so that the NFT market must, inevitably, be destroyed by them. _That_ is the the problem with NFTs, and I can see no solution that will not destroy every distinction between NFT markets and other online markets for digital art, or conflict too much with the profits of the NFT markets to be attempted before it is too late.


----------



## atsouthorn (Dec 30, 2021)

I don't like where this is heading. The free physical space around us is shrinking and the online universe is ever-growing.


----------



## Wayne Mack (Dec 30, 2021)

I agree that damage to the book distorts my initial example, so let me restate and refocus on the concern that an NFT reduces demand and value for products.

Let's assume a bookseller who has two copies of a book. One day the author comes by and signs one of the books in pencil. Does the bookseller lower the price on the unsigned book? Does the bookseller increase the price on the signed book? Note that the answers may be somewhat skewed depending upon whether the author is famous or obscure.

Sometime later, let's assume that the bookseller takes the signed book and very carefully erases the signature without otherwise damaging the book. Does the bookseller now raise the price on the originally unsigned book? Does the bookseller reduce the price on the previously signed book?

The assumption is that the price the bookseller assigns is reflective of the demand for the books to be sold. As the veracity of that assumption would lead the discussion in a far different direction, I ask that we leave it unchallenged for now and focus on the changes in perceived value.


----------



## Artoriarius (Dec 31, 2021)

Wayne Mack said:


> I agree that damage to the book distorts my initial example, so let me restate and refocus on the concern that an NFT reduces demand and value for products.
> 
> Let's assume a bookseller who has two copies of a book. One day the author comes by and signs one of the books in pencil. Does the bookseller lower the price on the unsigned book? Does the bookseller increase the price on the signed book? Note that the answers may be somewhat skewed depending upon whether the author is famous or obscure.
> 
> ...


Suppose that the bookseller steals his books directly from the publisher, so that he doesn’t pay a penny to anyone involved in making them, and he forges the author’s signature on every book he sells. When the bookseller argues that more money is being made from the books overall, so he did a good thing and committed no crime, how long is the judge going to be laughing at him before she throws the book at him?

Let’s drop the book metaphor; it’s not leading us anywhere useful, and it’s distracting from the issue at stake. I do accept, and have never denied, your economic arguments as being true _in theory_; but as has been proved so often, practice is the enemy of theory. In this case:



Artoriarius said:


> In short, the problem is the art theft, not just that the artist isn’t going to make as much selling elsewhere; the problem is that many artists are finding somebody else selling their art, and are understandably and justifiably upset by it; the problem is that the blockchain says nothing about the legitimacy of the seller, only the manner of sale; the problem is that as the theft goes unchecked, honest NFTs become worth less than they otherwise would be; the problem is that NFTs are far too susceptible a vehicle for thieves and con artists out to make a quick buck, so that the NFT market must, inevitably, be destroyed by them. _That_ is the the problem with NFTs, and I can see no solution that will not destroy every distinction between NFT markets and other online markets for digital art, or conflict too much with the profits of the NFT markets to be attempted before it is too late.



It is my belief that the art theft aspect is significant enough to override the economic arguments; all of your arguments have assumed that the only people selling are the people who have the _right_ to sell a particular item. If this were the case, then—apart from the usual problems with cryptocurrency, which is a whole other discussion—then NFTs would, indeed, be a good thing. But it isn’t the case, and you have to take that reality into account.

Because NFT markets are unregulated, there are no consequences for selling stolen art as NFTs.

Because there are no consequences for selling stolen art as NFTs, digital art thieves regularly use NFT markets to sell their stolen art at an inflated price.

Because digital art thieves regularly use NFT markets to sell their stolen art at an inflated price, the artists _are_ losing out.

Somebody else is profiting off of their work; somebody else is selling the work they have created without compensating the artist; the artist does not profit from this (because the artist is not the one selling the work, nor are they getting any compensation for it), and potential customers are drawn away from the markets they do profit from, because the people who buy NFTs are probably not going to buy a non-NFT version of the same work as well. _This is a bad thing._ It doesn’t matter if more money is being made off of the work overall, when the lion’s share of the money goes to a thief.


----------



## Laura R Hepworth (Jan 6, 2022)

I have to agree with @Artoriarius on the art theft issue. I've been hearing ever increasing complaints about this on a number of sites from other artists and, to make matters worse, the NFT sites (OpenSea in particular) are making it increasingly difficult for artists to get their work removed from the site. A simple DMCA used to be all that was needed, but now they are doxing the real artists to the art thieves as they send them all your personal information when you issue a take-down notice, plus, are requiring the artists to send them links to multiple sites to prove that they indeed are the artist. OpenSea is even trying to shift the blame to sites like DeviantArt for the art theft and away from themselves for not being more careful to prevent it.


----------

