In other words, a mark. At least he got most of his money back, but even if he hadn't, or if the NFT had been "genuine", the end result would have been the same. He would have ended up with an entry on a blockchain representing... well, not a whole lot. If he plays his cards right, maybe some other mark will buy this NFT as one representing a work of art in its own right. Hey, it's Banksi, so it's all about gimmicks and reputation rather than actual art anyway.
That's in no way different from any other copyright.
If you pirate an MP3 or buy a license for the MP3 and download it... you end up with the exact same MP3.
You can also buy a "limited edition" print of a work of art. Nevermind someone could just scan it... and print off a million more. Or a "First Edition" of a book. Same book usually.
Artificial, endorsed, scarcity for art is nothing new.
The difference between a print and an NFT is that you can hang the print on the wall, and in the long run I expect that will make all the difference. In contrast, an NFT is like a receipt for a work of art, and a digital one at that. In essence, an NFT is just a crypto coin with a serial number that has been arbitrarily assigned some meaning by an artist. “This coin represents ownership of a link to this painting (no, not the painting itself)”. An artist might just as well auction off physical dollar bills, the serial numbers being associated with his works of art. And if it were someone like Banksi doing it, there would be plenty of idiots buying them.
The difference between a print and an NFT is that you can hang the print on the wall, and in the long run I expect that will make all the difference.
The difference between a physical item and a digital one stored on a distributed blockchain is that the physical item can be destroyed a lot more easily. In the long run, that will make all the difference.
However, most NFTs are like most art, economically worthless. They have value only when treated like they have value, and this "NFT all the things!" craze will fade and stop perturbing values eventually. It won't be the end of NFTs, just the end of meaningless ones being profitable.
Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second marriage is
the triumph of hope over experience.
A fool and his money... (Score:4, Informative)
a prominent NFT collector and Banksy fan
In other words, a mark. At least he got most of his money back, but even if he hadn't, or if the NFT had been "genuine", the end result would have been the same. He would have ended up with an entry on a blockchain representing... well, not a whole lot. If he plays his cards right, maybe some other mark will buy this NFT as one representing a work of art in its own right. Hey, it's Banksi, so it's all about gimmicks and reputation rather than actual art anyway.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
That's in no way different from any other copyright.
If you pirate an MP3 or buy a license for the MP3 and download it... you end up with the exact same MP3.
You can also buy a "limited edition" print of a work of art. Nevermind someone could just scan it... and print off a million more. Or a "First Edition" of a book. Same book usually.
Artificial, endorsed, scarcity for art is nothing new.
Re:A fool and his money... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between a print and an NFT is that you can hang the print on the wall, and in the long run I expect that will make all the difference.
The difference between a physical item and a digital one stored on a distributed blockchain is that the physical item can be destroyed a lot more easily. In the long run, that will make all the difference.
However, most NFTs are like most art, economically worthless. They have value only when treated like they have value, and this "NFT all the things!" craze will fade and stop perturbing values eventually. It won't be the end of NFTs, just the end of meaningless ones being profitable.