> “We can’t just scan it and put it on the internet,” Fang said. But by raising the money as a DAO, Fang said they hoped to show the various estates and stakeholders that there is a massive online interest in making the bible more accessible to the public.
I don't know what they're doing, but it seems that they are at least a bit aware that they don't own the rights.
Who exactly are they trying to convince, and about what? I mean they don't just need the rights to the art in the book itself, but they also need to get the movie/TV rights for Dune itself.
Is this really spending €2.6M just to get a foot in the door, to be able to spend, what, another $200M for the actual rights?
But even then, why do they think this DAO is the best way to execute this vision?
They could just go "oh, people are interested in Dune? Ok, let's make a movie, but without involving these DAO people". Oh wait, there already is a Dune series of movies currently being made/in theaters.
Now it will be hosted on some other server as well (THE REAL DECENTRALIZED SERVER) but wrapped into some NFT, where they will sell each page - or even better - each square of the storyboard, coated into some fucked up story like:
"You can own a piece of a future TV Show based on this story board!"
And they will probably come out profiting because people will buy this illusion.
Edit: From a quick Google search there's around 3000 drawings, so 3000 NFTs at some absurd price that people will want for a piece of the pipe dream. They didn't even had to pay an artist or create a story this time around...
They can't, of course, sell the images themselves; they don't hold the copyright. But they can sell URLs referring to the content.
That's pretty clever. I mean it's super dumb, but it's clever.
By that I mean that an NFT whose content is an URL to an image you don't own, is dumb. But it's clever to "mint" these, and you'll find more fools to buy the NFTs if you give the appearance of legitimacy.
In other words: They have no more rights to sell NFTs for the contents than I do, but they'll be more successful at implying to buyers that they do.
The most interesting thing about NFTs (and most blockchain tech) is the question "is this actually fraud, or is it merely stupid?". It's philosophy about the meaning of "fraud".
I don't know the legal intricacies of this, like to what extent can they sell not the content but the actual physical square piece of the book, under an NFT?
For example, a company called MSCHF sold 999 fake Warhol drawings and 1 real[0], all mixed up so no one knows which one is the real one, for 250$ each... can they do this? Is this legal? At least people were aware of it, so I doubt it's fraud.
Here's the math of it:
- they paid 8,125$ for the original;
- they sold 1000 for 250$ = 250,000$
- they profited 250,000$ - 8,125$ = 241k$
Of course this was also a mix of a PR stunt, still, if you can do PR stunts and profit... I mean... isn't this what Supreme has been doing for years?
So I don't even think the legality of it all is a issue, because has you hinted, people are deliberately rolling into this...stupidity(?).
I think all of these use similar emotional mechanisms of gambling, which if you think about it, most of the current collectibles market nowadays is gambling for everyone, kids included.
Sounds like it was just a raffle. $250 for a 1 in 1,000 chance to win a prize worth ~$8,125. Happens all the time in school fundraisers and other community events. Of course they didn’t need to use a blockchain or cryptocurrency to hold a simple raffle, but here we are.
Also in a raffle they usually just tell you when you’ve won.
Better odds and potential return dollar for dollar than the lottery, though.
Right, it’s a raffle with more steps and dubious legality. Seems unnecessary when a regular raffle would have sufficed, but I suppose that wouldn’t have got attention.
> I don't know the legal intricacies of this, like to what extent can they sell not the content but the actual physical square piece of the book, under an NFT?
I am also not a lawyer, but for the physical piece either you own it or you don't. If you own it then surely there must be some contract where you "lease it out" to the "keeper" of it. Or if you're the one "keeping" it (and owning it), then some contract that you can't sell the NFT to one person and the physical item to another?
But all these have to be legal contracts. And if you have a legal contract with someone about how you're not allowed to sell a physical thing you own, ever, do you truly own it? (not to mention who is on the other side of this contract? Who has legal standing to sue if you violate the contract?)
One thing this reminds me of is Commonhold (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonhold), which is a home ownership form in some countries, and some other apartment ownership models. In some models you don't "own" your own apartment, but own a stake in the house, and this stake gives you the full access to a contractually specified apartment number.
That and, of course, its similarity to bearer bonds.
Let's say you own the NFT and legally possess the physical item. Can you retire the NFT, and have it be physical-only from now on? Can you still sell it as an NFT after you sold the physical item? The simple answer to that last part is "of course you can. NFT means nothing".
You can mint an NFT for my house. But good luck trying to kick me out. The police will not be impressed.
The owner of this book needs not to make sure "math" secures transfer of legal ownership, but law. And that's the problem with these blockchain inventions.
> For example, a company called MSCHF sold 999 fake Warhol drawings and 1 real[0], all mixed up so no one knows which one is the real one, for 250$ each... can they do this? Is this legal? At least people were aware of it, so I doubt it's fraud.
Again I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that no it's not fraud, but it's copyright infringement. And if the copyright holder doesn't sue you, then that's their choice.
But good luck buying a Disney movie for $10, and selling 9 copies+original for $1 each. Even without profit the mouse will go after you, and he'll be legally right.
I guess we're all waiting for the first NFT legal dispute, and see how it will roll out and what precedents it will set for the future.
Because until then, they're all playing a make-belief game.
Like the guy who claimed the moon and actually sold plots of land on the moon to people[0]. He was navigating a "loop hole" and no one cared about it, or even took it serious. But if people are putting money upfront, at what point it should be addressed?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amansethi/spicedao-dune...
I don't know what they're doing, but it seems that they are at least a bit aware that they don't own the rights.
Who exactly are they trying to convince, and about what? I mean they don't just need the rights to the art in the book itself, but they also need to get the movie/TV rights for Dune itself.
Is this really spending €2.6M just to get a foot in the door, to be able to spend, what, another $200M for the actual rights?
But even then, why do they think this DAO is the best way to execute this vision?
They could just go "oh, people are interested in Dune? Ok, let's make a movie, but without involving these DAO people". Oh wait, there already is a Dune series of movies currently being made/in theaters.
But also: The contents have been on the internet for years, apparently: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNGBuasYa_WETf7sF6Q9W3S... (from the twitter thread)