"People willing to pay for art is great"
they're not paying for art though
(, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 13:01, Reply)
Ignoring the quality of the work,
and all the copyright theft, they are surely paying for art in the same way as paying for an mp3 is.
It's giving money to be able to go "this one is in my collection", even though you could just illegally download / stream and give the person who made it nothing.
I mean, I still don't know *why* you would (there is so much awful stuff about them), but I suspect a big market is in people at an age where they want to express a personality via the media they consume. Paying for things does increase that feeling of ownership.
Professional dealers buying them just shows what a load of bollocks the art market has always been.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 13:18,
Reply)
because the ownership model is different to mp3
if you legally download a song you have rights to play that file.
an NFT does not confer ownership of the image. You get to register that you 'own' that one digital instance of the file (not a download).
The register is unregulated and unenforceable, and gives you no control over what you 'own'. So in a very real and legal sense, you don't.
(, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 14:23, Reply)
Yeah, but you still curate a personal collection.
You can then show them off to other people who care.
Surely people buying them know what they are buying by now, so legal ownership can't be why they are doing so (and my question is why are they doing so, not why are they shit).
Admittedly, Pokemon might have been a better example than mp3. People like to collect things and follow fads.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 15:25,
Reply)