@johnny0779: Spider Man: No Way Home (Dec 2021) has the second highest opening weekend of all time... Pretty sure this movie is just crap (based on many critical reviews... don't have the courage to go watch it).
@bigcrusha: No, owning an NFT does not imply any actual intellectual property and in fact if you go on the website on the auction for the "charlie bit my finger" video it specifically says that the family is selling an NFT only and retains all actual rights to the video.
The blockchain proves that your NFT is unique and in essence can prove that you own the digital file, but it doesn't imply any rights on the content of that file.
@clearvision: I agree, this really deserved a bit more effort. Not only is it lacking explanations and analysis, but some of it is actually misleading. For example, it says that the family is selling the video and that the buyer will exclusively "own" the video, but if you go on the auction website and look at the terms, it specifically says that the family is selling a unique NFT of the video and is retaining all actual rights to the video.
@PrpleTrtleBuBum: The thing is what you are describing isn't the way that NFTs work. There already is a system of copyright and intellectual property that exists and that allows someone to sell the rights to art, media etc.
NFTs are not covered by any specific laws, and there is nothing that actually links copyright or intellectual property with an NFT. That doesn't mean the holder of the copyright or of the intellectual property will not sell the rights at the same time as the NFT, but they are two completely separate entities.
In fact there are many sales of NFTs that don't include the rights to the content. There are musicians, for example, who will sell NFTs of their albums or songs that give absolutely no rights to the content but are essentially "numbered" digital albums.
Edit : I just went on the auction website and in the terms section it specifically says that you are only purchasing the NFT and that the family retains all rights to the video. So you can't actually exploit the video in any way, and nothing stops them from reposting the video on youtube in a month. You just have to hope that at some point someone will be willing to pay more for the NFT than you did. What a scam.
@cayrel: I mean, a virtual currency based on a meme image of a shiba inu is currently worth 85 billion dollars, and there are currently over 2000 different crypto-currencies in circulation. At least with NFTs people have found a way of spicing up the biggest and most complex pyramid scheme in human history.
@jinzo9988: I posted this elsewhere, but 20 years ago was the height of the beanie baby craze. I guess technically this is even dumber, since you don't even have an actual object, but not by much.
Some people are just stupid and others will do anything to cash in on that stupidity. The border between those two groups is pretty thin, and essentially when this comes crashing down anyone left holding this garbage will be considered an idiot while anyone who sold in time will be considered a business genius.
Essentially an non-fungible token (NFT) is when you take a digital file, that can technically be copied and shared an infinite amount of times, and that is often already readily available online, and you use blockchain technology to make a certain copy of that file unique, and then you give non-instrinsic value to that "unique" file by saying that it is the "real" file or part of a limited set of files. You then sell that "unique" file for thousands or even in some cases millions of dollars, often to people who believe that the non-intrinsic value of the file will continue to rise and they are making an investement. To give you an idea of the craze, an NFT that was a set of digital artwork sold for 69 million dollars not too long ago.
I don't know how old you are and if you will be able to relate, but it kind of reminds me of the Beanie baby craze 20 years ago, only here instead of actually owning a small toy, you get an e-mail saying that you own a small toy.
@donbongo: I've enjoyed both SV and AC but they are markedly different. The mechanics are simplified in AC, and it is a lot more relaxed. You don't have the time constraint and don't feel rushed. Upgrading, building things, etc is a lot more focused on "useless things" (decorations etc) while in SV it's a lot more about optimization.
To give you a concrete example of the more relaxed nature of things, in AC you can put the control down for 30 minutes and leave the game running and not really miss out on anything, while in SV you are rushing to get things accomplished in a "day". Also there is no real fighting or possibility to lose progress.
It's about unlocking cool outfits, furniture, expanding you town, but more for the aesthetic accomplishment than anything else.
xavroche's comments