Interesting guy. Though, pardon me for being a little pedantic, but the typo of "segway" for "segué" is kind of funny considering that the Segway personal transportation device was named for the word "segué", as a pun on something that moves you from one conversational place to another.
I don't really buy Mark's argument about NFT's. What…
Interesting guy. Though, pardon me for being a little pedantic, but the typo of "segway" for "segué" is kind of funny considering that the Segway personal transportation device was named for the word "segué", as a pun on something that moves you from one conversational place to another.
I don't really buy Mark's argument about NFT's. What makes an original Picasso valuable is both the judgment that it is important art (which is a cultural rather than commercial phenomenon) and also the fact that there is only one original and there's no way to make another. You can photograph a Picasso and sell prints, but a print is not the painting, just a photograph of a painting. They are fundamentally different types of things even though they look similar. Whereas with NFT's, it's only the NFT itself that is unique. There is a digital file (an image, an audio file, a movie, whatever) that the NFT is associated with, but that digital file can easily be copied any number of times and every copy is exactly the same as the original. The very concept of "the original" has no real meaning in this situation. The NFT seems like nothing more than an attempt to designate its current owner as the owner of "the original" of some digital file, but the whole idea is nonsense. And since all the other copies are exactly the same as the NFT copy, why should anyone care about owning the NFT? Wanting to own a painting rather than a print makes sense, but it's absurd to argue that an NFT means that your copy of a file is somehow better or more desirable than all the others.
Think about how the art market would change if we had a machine that could create absolutely perfect atom-for-atom copies of original artwork, utterly indistinguishable from "the original". Ownership of the original would no longer matter; you couldn't even prove that your copy was the original! You'd need something like an NFT to designate any one copy as "the original", but it would be an arbitrary distinction because there would be no way to prove that it really was the original, and anyway the non-NFT copies would be just as good as the NFT copy, so who in their right mind would care? You can argue that it's basically just an investment, but that relies on the hope that the foolishness of caring about a distinction without a difference will continue indefinitely.
I agree on your NFT assessment. I'm a web dev and know that pretty much nothing is sacrosanct online. If you put it out there, someone is going to steal it and use it however they like. It is very challenging to gate digital content. The workarounds are just too easy for coders.
On the Segway (it should be capitalized) I am guessing this was an auto-transcription—at least in part and they missed that bit.
Yes, I've spent hours researching NFTs. They are not a replacement for decades of copyright law. They are a scam in the simplest of terms. NFT files (JPEGs, etc) are also too large for the blockchain, what you actually own is an 80 character hash on the hard drive on some random kid. Don't get me started on the environmental concerns associated with gas fees.
A lot of people are going to lose a lot of money when they try to "resell" their NFTs.
Interesting guy. Though, pardon me for being a little pedantic, but the typo of "segway" for "segué" is kind of funny considering that the Segway personal transportation device was named for the word "segué", as a pun on something that moves you from one conversational place to another.
I don't really buy Mark's argument about NFT's. What makes an original Picasso valuable is both the judgment that it is important art (which is a cultural rather than commercial phenomenon) and also the fact that there is only one original and there's no way to make another. You can photograph a Picasso and sell prints, but a print is not the painting, just a photograph of a painting. They are fundamentally different types of things even though they look similar. Whereas with NFT's, it's only the NFT itself that is unique. There is a digital file (an image, an audio file, a movie, whatever) that the NFT is associated with, but that digital file can easily be copied any number of times and every copy is exactly the same as the original. The very concept of "the original" has no real meaning in this situation. The NFT seems like nothing more than an attempt to designate its current owner as the owner of "the original" of some digital file, but the whole idea is nonsense. And since all the other copies are exactly the same as the NFT copy, why should anyone care about owning the NFT? Wanting to own a painting rather than a print makes sense, but it's absurd to argue that an NFT means that your copy of a file is somehow better or more desirable than all the others.
Think about how the art market would change if we had a machine that could create absolutely perfect atom-for-atom copies of original artwork, utterly indistinguishable from "the original". Ownership of the original would no longer matter; you couldn't even prove that your copy was the original! You'd need something like an NFT to designate any one copy as "the original", but it would be an arbitrary distinction because there would be no way to prove that it really was the original, and anyway the non-NFT copies would be just as good as the NFT copy, so who in their right mind would care? You can argue that it's basically just an investment, but that relies on the hope that the foolishness of caring about a distinction without a difference will continue indefinitely.
I agree on your NFT assessment. I'm a web dev and know that pretty much nothing is sacrosanct online. If you put it out there, someone is going to steal it and use it however they like. It is very challenging to gate digital content. The workarounds are just too easy for coders.
On the Segway (it should be capitalized) I am guessing this was an auto-transcription—at least in part and they missed that bit.
Yes, I've spent hours researching NFTs. They are not a replacement for decades of copyright law. They are a scam in the simplest of terms. NFT files (JPEGs, etc) are also too large for the blockchain, what you actually own is an 80 character hash on the hard drive on some random kid. Don't get me started on the environmental concerns associated with gas fees.
A lot of people are going to lose a lot of money when they try to "resell" their NFTs.
Appreciate the synopsis. It's what I suspected. Most people who don't understand tech (like MC) easily fall for this stuff.