Hacker News Reader

Comment by tshaddox | Hacker News Reader

> If people are willing to purchase your NFT anyway, who cares?

Isn't that ultimately how anything works? I can print out a cheap copy of the Mona Lisa, say "I'm selling the Mona Lisa," and someone can purchase it if they choose to. Of course, I may have broken some laws in the particular government jurisdiction this transaction occurs in, like trademark, copyright, fraud, etc., but that's just as true with NFTs.

This just doesn't seem like a valid criticism of NFTs. There are plenty of valid and strong criticisms of NFTs available, so there's no need to invent invalid and weak ones!

View on HN

> Isn't that ultimately how anything works? I can print out a cheap copy of the Mona Lisa, say "I'm selling the Mona Lisa," and someone can purchase it if they choose to. Of course, I may have broken some laws in the particular government jurisdiction this transaction occurs in, like trademark, copyright, fraud, etc., but that's just as true with NFTs.

Well no the difference here is that my example has nothing copied either. Your example has something copied. They are not analogous as they lack that similarity.

The person selling this NFT that contains no copy does not have to misrepresent anything. Hence no fraud. The contract address is obviously different.

Theft requires something to be moved. Copyright infringement requires something to be copied. Fraud requires misrepresentation.

None of that is necessary here.

I don't consider what I wrote to be a criticism of NFTs, I find it amusing.

> Well no the difference here is that my example has nothing copied either. Your example has something copied. They are not analogous as they lack that similarity.

Okay, then just tweak my analogy slightly and sell a piece of paper printed with the URL to a photograph of the Mona Lisa, or to an image of a piece of digital artwork, or to a digital audio file, etc.

> The person selling this NFT that contains no copy does not have to misrepresent anything. Hence no fraud. The contract address is obviously different.

If you're defining it as not fraudulent and not copying anything, then what's absurd about the situation at all? It might be amusing that someone might buy something that you personally don't value at all, but that's hardly unique to NFTs.

> If you're defining it as not fraudulent and not copying anything, then what's absurd about the situation at all? It might be amusing that someone might buy something that you personally don't value at all, but that's hardly unique to NFTs.

We're agreeing then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com