Great post. Funny thing is that the second twitter post is a fake "artist" who is just stealing pictures of rugs off the internet and selling them as his original work, claiming they were created from some special algorithmic program that turns portrait art into these rugs. I'm a certified Oriental rug appraiser and those are hand made rugs. A simple google search using their image matching tool shows them on Pinterest or the original sites.
That is why copyright exists in the first place. Along with patent and Trademark they are the basis of protection for intellectual property that are backed by the threat and reality of government violence. One must establish the "first" right to have a legal claim on it as with any property. Of course selling stolen or unverifiable property hasn't stopped IRL so that system isn't a perfect by any stretch and it fails much worse in a digital world.
Interestingly the algorithmic detection of abuse of digital rights has gotten very good but as you know the validity of the claim of that first right still has to be established. I do think that a market solution is possible and far more desirable than the centralized violence of government but it has yet to be done.
I absolutely believe that we are moving toward a day when everyone will deposit their content (or a hash) into an account (ZK?) to be used as part of a verification process for when others try to do the same. In the end I don't see that really replacing the need for judicial process in the case where both sides dispute. But it is a much better solution than what we have now and the dispute resolution process is a whole other subject.
I agree. Copyright and the "threat of force" wielded by governments isn't automatically nullified or subsumed by blockchains. But I also don't automatically subscribe to the belief that it should be.
Ownership, or the bundle of rights we refer to as ownership, includes a subset of rights that blockchains alone cannot enforce without some degree of human subjectivity, e.g. Is this NFT copyfraud, infringement, or fair use for the purposes of satire which is protected under some nation-states but not others?.
The "NFT rug merchant" above is a great example. Ethereum miners can enforce that all Rug NFT holders have the sole right to transfer them to other Ethereum accounts, but little else. We explored some mechanisms at JAAK that would incentivise participants and minters to eventually converge towards truth through staking/slashing but the margin for error was too large to be reliable until you reach critical mass.
There are a few projects trying to bring copyright-enforcement mechanisms on-chain by writing and enforcing legal contracts that "port" rights on-chain (https://mattereum.com/about/) but that seems oddly skeuomorphic to me.
Great post. Funny thing is that the second twitter post is a fake "artist" who is just stealing pictures of rugs off the internet and selling them as his original work, claiming they were created from some special algorithmic program that turns portrait art into these rugs. I'm a certified Oriental rug appraiser and those are hand made rugs. A simple google search using their image matching tool shows them on Pinterest or the original sites.
That is why copyright exists in the first place. Along with patent and Trademark they are the basis of protection for intellectual property that are backed by the threat and reality of government violence. One must establish the "first" right to have a legal claim on it as with any property. Of course selling stolen or unverifiable property hasn't stopped IRL so that system isn't a perfect by any stretch and it fails much worse in a digital world.
Interestingly the algorithmic detection of abuse of digital rights has gotten very good but as you know the validity of the claim of that first right still has to be established. I do think that a market solution is possible and far more desirable than the centralized violence of government but it has yet to be done.
I absolutely believe that we are moving toward a day when everyone will deposit their content (or a hash) into an account (ZK?) to be used as part of a verification process for when others try to do the same. In the end I don't see that really replacing the need for judicial process in the case where both sides dispute. But it is a much better solution than what we have now and the dispute resolution process is a whole other subject.
I agree. Copyright and the "threat of force" wielded by governments isn't automatically nullified or subsumed by blockchains. But I also don't automatically subscribe to the belief that it should be.
Ownership, or the bundle of rights we refer to as ownership, includes a subset of rights that blockchains alone cannot enforce without some degree of human subjectivity, e.g. Is this NFT copyfraud, infringement, or fair use for the purposes of satire which is protected under some nation-states but not others?.
The "NFT rug merchant" above is a great example. Ethereum miners can enforce that all Rug NFT holders have the sole right to transfer them to other Ethereum accounts, but little else. We explored some mechanisms at JAAK that would incentivise participants and minters to eventually converge towards truth through staking/slashing but the margin for error was too large to be reliable until you reach critical mass.
There are a few projects trying to bring copyright-enforcement mechanisms on-chain by writing and enforcing legal contracts that "port" rights on-chain (https://mattereum.com/about/) but that seems oddly skeuomorphic to me.