Andreessen Horowitz Wants To Fix NFT Copyright With Its 'Can't Be Evil' License (theverge.com) 49
Venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) is trying to clean up the messy state of crypto copyright. From a report: Last week, the company introduced what it dubs "Can't Be Evil" licenses: a series of agreements that let creators grant non-fungible token owners partial or near-complete rights to NFT art. It's fighting a problem many experts have called out -- one that's persistently undercut claims that NFTs let you "own" a work. The "Can't Be Evil" licenses (named after a common claim about blockchain businesses) are based on the Creative Commons (CC) copyright framework. But unlike Creative Commons, which provides blanket licenses to wide swathes of people, a16z's licenses lay out the relationship between an NFT buyer and the person who created the original art it's linked with. As explained in a blog post, the licenses are meant as a relatively simple but legally sound framework for setting the rights of NFT holders, open to modification by individual projects. It's something many NFT projects -- including some massive brands like Bored Ape Yacht Club -- fail to do consistently. There are already attempts at making a standardized NFT license, but so far, none have seen the kind of success Creative Commons has in the non-crypto world. And a16z, which has invested a huge amount in the crypto ecosystem, has a vested interest in solving the problem.
Brilliant.. (Score:2)
People are misbehaving and violating other people's violating intellectual property rights, contrary to standing copyright law.
Solution: Tell people "you shouldn't do that"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Brilliant.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the most critical part of the solution: yet another license that people won't abide by, just like the current one.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if copyright law were fair, much less of that would be happening. Since it obviously is not and got corrupted by people with too much money, citizens chose to ignore it. A law is only a good law if almost everybody can see it is a good law. Copyright is a perverted shadow of its original intent. Which, BTW, was to keep publishers (!) from ripping off creators. Obviously it does not serve that role anymore and has not done so for a long time.
Don't Be Evil (Score:2, Funny)
That worked out great for Google
Re: (Score:2)
Google evolved to be a normal, large, basically evil company. They are not making any really desirable products anymore either...
After Deviantart (Score:2)
This coming from people who minted NFTs off DeviantArt without any kind of permission and mostly replying with, "Well you should have minted it yourself." So the name choice for this near useless license is quite "interesting".
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention useless. Given the creator has to basically abide by this, this doesn't stop anyone from anything. The same problems with NFTs apply - the only thing this license does is make it so if you create an NFT of your work, you could optionally make it more valuable by transfe
Who? (Score:2, Interesting)
Homer sums up my first reaction pretty well [youtube.com].
NFTs are for idiots. Who gives a darn? (Score:2)
It's all a scam for morons. Screw them all.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds more like it is changing what an NFT is, trying to convert it to a blockchain entry that conveys rights to the underlying "thing," rather than a scammy etherial right. I'm a bit skeptical that it will do much, but hey, not my problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Math doesn't give ownership. Laws do.
Not necessary (Score:2)
code, law. (Score:2)
They used to say "code is law".
Now it's "code and law is law".
Which makes you wonder what the code adds.
Re: (Score:2)
Lawrence Bourne III : You said opium was money.
Chung Mee : Money is Money.
Lawrence Bourne III : Well then, what is time again?"
Re: (Score:2)
Which makes you wonder what the code adds.
Pretty much nothing. The article even kind of addresses this: "The contract also specifies that copyrights only transfer if the NFT is legally sold -- so stealing somebody’s token doesn’t give you all the rights associated with them." That means the token and the legal rights are separate things. Just because someone has the token, it doesn't prove they have any legal rights. And someone without the token might claim the legal rights, and it will all go to court, and the case will get decide
Define Evil (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What you've actually observed is that they don't agree with you about the difference between right and wrong. They don't agree with me, either. And neither do you.
The consensus about what's right and what's wrong was broken, perhaps permanently, when Ronald Reagan pronounced "Greed is good". It had already been grievously weakened by the sexual freedom movement, but it had survived things like that before (though with less effective birth control and STD treatments). Anti-war protests during the Vietnam
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't be surprised if Ronald Reagan did say it at some point, but given that Wall Street came out in 1987 and he was suffering from Alzheimer's quite badly by then I would be surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
Gordon Gecko's actual line was "greed, for lack of a better word, is good". What he was talking about isn't "greed" in the strict or usual sense, but a motivation that English doesn't have a single word for.
Re: (Score:2)
Wall Street was supposed to be a warning about unregulated capitalism, but doesn't seem to have been heeded.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately "evil" has become a nebulous term
"Evil" is corporations not respecting our privacy when we get free stuff from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Only because several groups intentionally muddies the waters. Which clearly is evil. Essentially, you can take the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and derive from there whether something is evil or not.
But then came the large companies, that worship greed and power over everything else and needed to pretend that it was not so. Then came the politicians, always eager to virtue-signal, but at the same time desperate grow their power and fortune. And, of course, lets not forget organized religions which
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't complicated though. Humans are highly social animals and antisocial behavior is evil - all the other definitions are the many applications of evil. The simplest concept for most understand is the golden rule.
For developers of AI, this is a critical concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. And yes, it is really not hard.
Let's translate this to English (Score:2)
"Can't be evil" means "Can't be NFT," since NFT's are nothing but a ponzi scam.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they theoretically *could* be something other than a scam. But that would require that the "owners" of something transfer the control of it to someone else...and honestly portray what it is that they're transferring.
Re: (Score:2)
NFT's are nothing but a ponzi scam.
NFTs are nothing like a Ponzi Scheme [wikipedia.org]. If you think they are, you don't understand NFTs, don't understand what a Ponzi Scheme is, or both.
NFTs really aren't a scam at all since no one is being misled. They are just an extremely stupid investment.
Re: (Score:1)
it definitely looks a bit like one though
Re: (Score:2)
NFTs are a "bigger fool" scam. Similar to a ponzi scheme but not the same.
Their value is entirely dependent on there being someone else even dumber than you out there willing to buy them. That's why celebrity endorsements are so valuable, they make excellent convincers.
Subject (Score:2)
The "fix" for NFT's is getting rid of them.
Re: (Score:3)
It is actually the opposite-- copyright supersedes NFT. An NFT doesn't actually convey any rights.
Re: (Score:2)
A proper NFT is accompanied by a contract that says the "owner" has certain rights to use and exploit the work.
They are still a massive scam, but at least in the early days they did at least pretend.
Re: (Score:2)
don't NFTs supersede copyright ownership?
No. NFTs don't give the owner any rights.
I've read about NFT holders getting DMCA takedowns on copyright owners due to this.
That means nothing. Anyone can request a DMCA takedown on anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
> don't NFTs supersede copyright ownership?
No. A NFT is a a receipt for a position in a queue for a thing, not the actual thing itself, which is why a NFT has ZERO rights.
You may be interested in these videos:
What the hell are NFT's? [youtube.com]
Line Goes Up -- The Problem With NFTs [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine falling for this
You actually believed this?
Jesus christ, dude, really?
Funny (Score:2)
What's the point? (Score:2)
NFTs are already a scam.
By definition, scams are evil.
Just let the entire idiotic endeavor crash, burn and die horribly.
NOTHING OF ANY VALUE WILL BE LOST.
why are you still watching this (Score:2)
We're shutting down power grids worldwide, rivers are drying up, and people are still burning carbon for fake internet money
and then saying "but don't be evil"
y'all should be responding by now. it was obvious years ago
Trying to legalize a scam (Score:2)
'Own nothing, rent everything' IS EVIL (Score:2)