Seth Green learns that Non-Fungible is not the same as non-stealable.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/sarahemerson/seth-green-bored-ape-stolen-tv-show
@Coctaanatis It's not like he doesn't still have the jpeg. All the person did is 'steal' a link on a blockchain. It's like writing "I own this" on a bathroom wall.
@CannibalHoliday There are legal rights that go with the ownership that was stolen and sold.
@Coctaanatis Pfft. They've been stealing and reminting the images in this pyramid scheme since the first image was released. How can you own the copyright in a scam?
@CannibalHoliday Read the linked article.
@Coctaanatis Read it, still means nothing. The entire NFT ecosphere is a criminal enterprise for pyramid schemes and money laundering. There has never been any respect of copyright within the NFT ecosphere, and can it even apply in something that is a larger criminal enterprise?
@CannibalHoliday Apparently he thinks it can, probably on advice of counsel. The purpose of an NFT is to establish legal ownership. It doesn't have to be "art." It can be virtually anything in which you can claim a property interest. I honestly don't know how the courts will handle these situations. The whole NFT art thing has me baffled. It's almost universally crap and yet it can bring in large sums of money.
@Coctaanatis The money for art in NFT is an illusion and part of the scam. You have a central core of users washing vast sums of money between themselves to hide actual transactions and services. Those same guys can pay a streamer or TV celeb a million dollars to shill NFTs for them. So throwing out 20,000 for a random piece of art garbage here and there is worth it because it'll get some rando covered by the NYT.
@CannibalHoliday Wouldn't it just be easier to use cryptocurrency?
@Coctaanatis Sort of. First adopters end up becoming the whales in the scams. So people are always looking for a way to take the blockchain, which is now over a decade old and no longer novel, and make it novel again. Novelty brings marks.