/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

NFTs aren't even intellectual property, the original creator of the image can still sell it, put it on tshirts, whatever if they want to, it's nothing like the Mona Lisa where you actually possess the original.

>>645682
No they can't when the NFT is created then all ownership rights go to the NFT holder, and the NFT holder owns the image

>haha yeah the mona lisa is worth $100 million but I took a picture on my phone now I own it

An actual painting has a history and still contains the actual touch of the original painter and those are immutable and can't be reproduced. NFT and a picture of the same NFT are identical, they are basically the same bits copied endlessly, but one has spooked copyright mechanism that only exists to enable speculation.

Information contains no labor, therefore shouldn't be property.
Intellectual property is purely an arrangement of state violence, and NFTs are simply nothing at all because they're not even backed by state violence. The price will eventually reach the true value of zero.

>its me just being genuinely curious
Yes I'm sure the concern troll is just being genuinely curious.
We can tell because you chose a poltard image.
The reality of the world is that everything is developed by some Taiwanese, Koreans, and increasingly mainland Chinese companies these days.
Americans don't invent anything because they are too stupid for scientific thought, but they are good at branding and passing off commodities as their own.

>>645728
Land contains no labor, yet it's still property of the state

If intellectual property should be upheld, then by your logic every single colony ever taken by the English should be handed over to the Chinese. Gunpowder is a Chinese invention.

Intellectual property is peak rentier parasitism and actually hampers the creative potential of humanity. No fucking wonder that anglos obsess over this when their whole economy and existence is based around extracting rent out of actual productive parts of humanity.

>both are 'worth' the same therefore they must be the same in every aspect
Capitalism does rot one's brain.

This being said it's not the same because with NFT you are basically just trading the ownership rights of said 'artwork' to speculate and gamble.
The difference between owning the first recording of a song on vinyl and owning the rights to the song, owning a 1º issue of a comic book vs owning the rights to the comic book character.

The difference between NFTs and just some regular trading of intellectual property is that, usually intellectual property has some use, application or something, like a character, a logo, a program or whatever. Nobody buys the rights to something just to 'collect' it. Thus NFT collectors arent really… collectors
NFTs have no use other than speculation, and are akin to buying Beanie Babies or Pet rocks or whatever usually worthless item, the absurdity is amplified because they are a 100% digital item so you can never 'own' the item in question, just the rights to it.

>>645673
Digital "property" can't be transferred from one party to another the way physical objects can. Any digital object that comes into your possession is a copy unless you acquire the data storage device the work was originally stored on.

>>645812
Even then bits get shuffled around endlessly so it's unlikely the original is actually 'original' either.

property isn't a real thing

The things you talk about fall under 2 categories:
1. Things that were produced in the past and due to their history have an intangible value to society, but rich cunts still try to overbid for it just for bragging rights. The mona lisa, a picasso, the declaration of independence, napoleons underwear. The way this is abused is by people speculating on it, nobody except maybe the public by means of private ownership instead of museum ownership, is losing anything from this speculation.
2. Shit that is made artificially scarce just to extort money from others.

We, as socialists, do not care about your fucking baseball card collection. The only reason your baseballcard of Michel McManly is worth 10 times that of Roger Balldodger is because the producers made an intentional choice to produce less of them in the past or even currently, its artificial scarcity, they are mass produced commodities, pretty much interchangeable with another card of the same type.

Intellectual property, like copyright and patents, the only one that really matters (we dont give a fuck about your ugly monkeys other than it burns up the planet) exist only to limit its availability to society at large. Copyright is the reason we cannot find translations of Rosa Luxembourg online in our native language, even though 4 translations exist owned by 4 publishers. Patents are the reason africa and asia cannot make the vaccines we developed in the west, despite them being able to start producing them within a week of getting the green light.
Intellectual property is violence against the non-owners by monopoly capitalists. Its a wholly new concept invented within capitalism to make non-scarce, infinitely available goods (information) fit into the capitalist system. At this you can respond in two ways:
>That is good, if we didnt do that, we wouldnt have any new inventions and software and books
Or the marxist view:
>This is fucking insane. The most important commodities within capitalism these days are in their true nature post-scarcity, yet this economic system deprives society of the ability to use them to their full potential, all to keep the system of production for profit in place. We must destroy capitalism.

There was no intellectual property in feudalism, or slave society, or primitve communism. Its a giant top-down enforced stopgap to keep the capitalist mode of production functioning, even though the production of software, medicine, books, inventions, digital art, photography, movies, music, etc, is incompatible with the mode of production that is capitalism.

At best, intellectual property ensures writers of books get paid a bit (their published grabs a large chunk anyway)
At worst, intellectual property is one of the core aspects of violence and imperialism, it keeps the third world poor by preventing the third world from using basic ass ideas and inventions they could make themselves if need be, but arent allowed to because of patents, and its active murder of the third world and even the working class of the first world, by denying them life saving medicine that they are materially able to produce, but not allowed to, under threat of crippling economic sanctions, regime change and military invasion.

I dont care about your baseballcards or ugly monkeys, I care about saving lives and realizing the full potential of humanity.

Here’s my definition of IP
If I have something I like
And you try to take it from me by force
I’ll fucking kill you

>>645673
>I'm just confused as to why a digital collectors item is seen as meaningless vs a physical collectors item when both can be worth the same amount.
One are just pixels, the other one has someone's blood and sweat on its touches

In order for you to make an invention you require the scientific knowledge of all of humanity that came before you.
If steampunk ancap builds a mechanical watch, he used proprietary screws so that no one can open it and designs it to explode if opened without a special brace. Thats how you protect inventions, by physically stopping reverse engineering.
The second you create a product and sell it to someone they are able to take it apart and learn how it works - the only way these ideas "belong" to you is if the state enforces it. As a consequence of physically existing in reality your invention becomes public knowledge.

mp3s aren't real because an artist can't live off the rent of a recorded performance forever without the intervention of the state to protect their monopoly. ideally musicians should be required to produce physical recording products as art or perform live for compensation or work in other productive jobs. its completely ridiculous that some people can do one thing one time and never work again.

>>645695
There are no ownership rights. The image copy you download is identical to the one hosted on the blockchain.

>>645673
intellectual property is when the state attacks you for copying something, it has nothing to do with NFTs and blockchains.

>haha yeah the mona lisa is worth $100 million but I took a picture on my phone now I own it
The Mona Lisa is a physical item and is not in principle capable of being identical to a photograph of it. The Mona Lisa is also not protected by copyright so it's also irrelevant to your argument.

>>645695
Where's the proofs? Are all these images signed over legally? I have not seen evidence of this.

Take something like a shirt, you can't be wearing it at the same time I am wearing it. Ownership of this shirt is exclusive
Now, take any idea. I can be thinking it and you can be thinking it. Take any digital file, a copy of it can be on my computer, your computer, anybody else's, etc.
Do you see why these are different from the shirt?

>>645673
China invented subscription digital services, and all the easy payment services were pioneered there. Oh, and Walmart and shit are based off Chinese networks.

Pay up for your theft of intellectual property, yankee.

Information is non-excludable / anti-rivalrous.
With the addition of copyright it become partially excludable, but doing so is so contradictory that even the normies sometimes notice.

The nuking of bourgeoisie property should begin with so called 'intellectual property'.

>why don't you consider this thing that you can't see, touch, hold, can totally disregard without any negative consequences and has only been around for a fraction of a fraction of human existence real
preeeeeeeeeeeetty spooky

>>645673
I don’t consider any private property a real thing and anyone who supports it is a cuck.

>>645695
>the NFT holder owns the image
Says who?

>>645673
>Question from someone who knows nothing about this stuff, so if it looks like arguing, its me just being genuinely curious. To me it seems like >whether its physical or digital shouldn't matter, right?
You don't pay for an object you pay for cost of reproducing it.

>Like if I have a painting worth 300k, or a jpeg worth 300k, no matter what I have the rights to something worth 300k.
A jpeg is a digital file, it cost virtually nothing to reproduce, therefore it's worth nothing, a physical painting is harder to reproduce, especially when you have to reproduce not only all surface appearance, but also the material properties of the substrate. Literally everything can in principle be reproduced with perfect fidelity if you can exactly copy it molecule by molecule.

>haha I took a screenshot of this NFT so I own it now
If you get an identical file, then yes it's yours, it's your personal property that you own.
When you buy an NFT your name is registered in a list that is made out of a complicated internet ledger. I don't know if these lists mean anything, there were people selling plots of land on the moon, and they also charged people to put names on lists. Do you think these people actually own a part of the moon ?

>haha yeah the mona lisa is worth $100 million but I took a picture on my phone now I own it
Eventually it will be possible to make perfect copies of physical objects by exactly replicating them at an atomic level, then everybody who wants it can have an original of the Mona Lisa for the cost of operating the device that makes atomic copies.

>>645673
Because taking it does not deprive the original user of usage

>>645695
He does not, he only owns a cryptographically unique version.

>To me it seems like whether its physical or digital shouldn't matter, right?
Are you genuinely retarded?

>>647098
There's no "cryptographically unique" version, the token itself doesn't contain the actual artwork, only the checksum and a hyperlink to the same artwork everyone else can see.

>>647098
Not even. All he has is a digital receipt.

https://torrentfreak.com/malaysia-passes-bill-to-imprison-illegal-streaming-pirates-for-up-to-20-years-211218/
>Those hoping to use a corporate structure as a shield are also put on notice. When any offenses are committed by a corporate body or by a person who is a partner in a firm, everyone from directors to managers will be deemed guilty of the offense and may be charged severally or jointly, unless they can show they had no knowledge and conducted due diligence to prevent the offense.
Gee I wonder why bourgeois dictatorships will pierce the corporate veil for this but not for real shit that matters to people

Concepts of property and theft developed on basis of survival - i steal your axe, now you don't have an axe therefore I cause you harm, in consequence possibly even physical harm. Pirating a movie makes no harm, you don't actually "steal" from anyone. First concepts of intellectual property are about the same age as capitalism, and it also corresponds to it's nature: monetize everything that could be monetized. Posted from a sneedbox with half a terrabyte of copyrighted material on it. Intellectual property is a spook.

Basically they own a token and that token is said to represent an artwork. It is not that artwork in any form, even digital. How this is worth anything at all is an open question. It’s not much different from bitcoin, except the tokens are non-fungible while bitcoins are.

>>647098
Not quite. His ownership is based on the recognition that a cryptographically unique token equals ownership of a certain piece of art— actually it doesn’t even go that far. The token ownership might confer some legal right to some third, separate thing, or it might not.

All value is created by labour and natural resources

>>645673
The right to property is the right to exclude.
Thoughts cannot be both recognized and excluded from thought. IP is a privledge not a right. Property can only exist as a right in law, or through the use of force. The use of force against thought offends the foundation of all thinking beings, 'I think therefore I am' therefore circumscribing thought while a conservative commonplace, has no application in reality without destroying the humanity that may recognize it.

'Don't think of an elephant chanting hang mike pence.'

You cannot accurately say you didn't do so without accurately identifying the thing you say you didn't think of.

I WOULD dowload a car