Sources: OpenSea Eyes $13B Valuation

The thing is, NFT folks can't have it both ways. The advocates say it's not a URL - it's the art you're buying, that it's going to support artists, that everyone can share in the rewards.

As soon as something goes wrong, well it's actually a URL so take it up with Google, a centralized service, and file a DMCA take-down.

No matter what these grifters are taking advantage of the artist and the buyer.

I'm loving this web3 thing.

Openseas looks to be serving up the images, and according to that thread they aren't respecting DMCA requests ("apparently the only way to get them removed is by writing individual emails for each listing"), that's illegal, intentionally doing that is criminal. The people uploading the art without a license are breaking the law regardless of whether or not the site respects the DMCA. The people fraudulently representing themselves as the original artist when they aren't are breaking the law.

The interesting problem here is that they have started giving artists and their takedown requests the runaround. Like they're running out the clock and trying to placate the bots for as long as possible without taking things down. The intent and actions here is what may get them in trouble.

Artists can go to their host directly (Google) but that doesn't mean that OpenSeas isn't liable the same way torrent sites might be for their users' content.

You've used my creation without my license in a way that certainly violates current law - just because I had eschewed merchandising myself and just because your impact on my sales was positive and not negative - doesn't negate that you took my creative work and profited off of it without any meaningful fair use exception (like making a transformative work).

The NFT you could create to my photo has value because it's to my photo - additionally it prevents me from releasing an NFT and profiting similarly whether or not I ever chose to do so.

Go ahead and create a Mickey Mouse NFT and see just how many seconds it takes for Disney to crush you into the ground - then realize that the only reason most NFTs of unlicensed material go unchallenged is because there isn't a clear precedent yet established that makes it a knock out case - but there absolutely will be.

Personally I think information should be free.

> Federal courts are split, and recent rulings found that embedding social media posts on third-party websites could be copyright infringement.

> Some decisions have even stated that while social media sites “clearly foresee the possibility of entities…using web embeds to share other users’ content, none of them expressly grants a sublicense to those who embed publicly posted content.” The courts rejected motions to dismiss for fair use, stating that sharing such content is not a transformative use.

A seller who embeds a copyrighted image into an NFT marketplace listing without the necessary publishing rights and then sells the NFT would be more likely to be liable for copyright infringement than the social media embedder. This is because commercial use of copyrighted content is less likely to satisfy the fair use criteria:[2]

> Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.

Someone who sells an NFT without publishing rights is harming the market for NFTs derived from the copyrighted work. This also reduces the chance that a fair use defense would be accepted in court:[2]

> Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.

[1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/is-embedding-socia...

[2] https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

It isn't legal to knowingly facilitate sales of stolen goods, is it?

Other than that one employee that was caught front running and was then terminated I see nothing illegal or even close to illegal. There is no difference between opensee and ebay other than that only NFTs are sold.

They are all nihilists who are heating themselves with wood torn from the sinking ship.

When something is part of a limited edition run or a small batch production or a collection, buying a duplicate that isnt signed by the authors is "worthless." Unless for some reason the forgery manages to obtain its own fame and value.

The usual "crypto bad" argument is calling it a Ponzi scheme. This doesn't count as one of those either, but no one really cares.

This particular business and the overall NFT market comes across as snake oil to me (and a lot of other people).

I question the ethics of it. Perhaps a snarky comment wasn’t the appropriate way to express that.

Kudos to their team for capitalizing on it though.

The BITO ETF doesn't hold Bitcoin but instead holds CME futures contracts. Scroll down to Holdings. [2] I would strongly encourage folks who do not know the difference between holding the underlying asset and holding futures contracts to avoid aping into this.

[1] https://ycharts.com/companies/GBTC/discount_or_premium_to_na...

[2] https://www.proshares.com/our-etfs/strategic/bito

By providing liquidity on day 1, you release onto an uninformed populace a token with zero intrinsic value. At that point, your goal is not to build a business but rather to market your token - as that is where your compensation comes from. Your compensation isn't tied to any value you create in the business whatsoever - as it would be when trying to raise from VCs - but instead how much hype you can generate.

Now that your blue-sky security (your token) is your product, any money you spend trying to build a business puts you at a disadvantage relative to competitors who do not. Growth isn't even reflected in the token itself since tokens are not equity. It's not even an advantage to token holders for token issuers to try and build a business haha.

That's why in the last 14 years not a single ICO or token-first business has been successful in creating a business.

It is counterproductive to an ICO to actually try and build something under it, for everyone invovled.