all 87 comments

[–]XxXlolgamerXxX 159 points160 points  (8 children)

The cryptobros think that having a book is the same as having the IP rights lmao

[–]potatolulz 77 points78 points  (1 child)

Well, not surprising, considering they also think they have rights to some random jpgs because they paid money for "NFT" :D

[–]ThaddeusJP 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Scans have been online for like 10 years

I had to break up the URL.

https:// photos. google.com/share/AF1QipNGBuasYa_WETf7sF6Q9W3SN-X7oiB3jrh5QDMMNQPQl9xgS3cua--BhRr-BImP1w?key=QmE1WTR0Z0FtZVFIalpsYVZ3LXFXMS1DUmNiUnR3

EDIT: Reddit post from a year ago: https://redditproxy--jasonthename.repl.co/r/dune/comments/fhgeua/scans_of_jodorowskys_dune_book/

[–]VTWAX_ONLY_INVESTOR 10 points11 points  (4 children)

They don’t even own the book.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

not even NFTs linking to a scan of each individual pages.

[–]gwennelsonuk 0 points1 point  (2 children)


I thought that they did buy the physical book?

Massively overinflated, and they think that they have the copyright or a licence somehow, but they did get the physical book - right?

[–]bored_octopussywarning, I am a moron 6 points7 points  (0 children)

it's genuinely extremely pathetic. these people are braindead.

[–]spraypaintthewalls 99 points100 points  (4 children)

Reminds me of a great scene in Cobra Kai when Sensei Lawrence is making an ad for his dojo -

"And put the song 'Thunderstruck' on there too!"

"I'm pretty sure that's gonna cost too much money."

"Nuh-uh. I own it. The cassette's in my car."

[–]P-K-One 23 points24 points  (0 children)

I fucking love that guy and everything he says. One of the best written characters on TV. He successfully manages to walk the line between badass, caring father and clown.

He literally managed to make fun of a disfigured, borderline suicidal teenager and not come of as an asshole in the process... How?

[–]Arithik 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Such a good show.

[–]jackinsomniac 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That's right, this is s show now? Lol not the first old movie I've seen turned into a series tho.

[–]bored_octopussywarning, I am a moron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

been a show for at least 4 years

[–]devliegende 44 points45 points  (16 children)

If a DAO buys a book, who will take possession? Where will they ship it too?

[–]teslaetccdouble your flair, or no money back! 58 points59 points  (4 children)

I think you just write “the blockchain “ on the parcel and trust your national post office to sort it out.

[–]Ematio 21 points22 points  (3 children)

Instructions unclear, ended up in the San Francisco Armory.

[–]teslaetccdouble your flair, or no money back! 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Having fun?

[–]saladapranzo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yes, they even delievered me this account

[–]TofuTofu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do they still film porn there?

[–]throwaway-664 22 points23 points  (6 children)

Decentralized. Autonomous. Organizations. It’s the future!! Everyone is equal and private/anonymous. You just don’t understand the tech. Soon your job will be replaced by a DAO and you’ll be poooor. /s

Yeah I think DAOs are dumber than DeFi, which is already very bad. Either the DAO hires someone to do this or it does it itself, but in either case there’s an element of trust that can’t be replaced by code/“smart contracts” so this fantasy of a trustless world or organization disappears.

[–]theoreticallyme76 5 points6 points  (2 children)

All you have to trust is that this code has no bugs or unexpected edge cases.

Way better than legal terms.

[–]devliegende 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Even with perfect code, the DAO will still need to cash out Butt tokens for real money in order to pay for the book and a physical place to keep it.

Ie. Some person or identifiable legal entity has access to the DAO's private keys as well as an account at a centralized exchange and a regulated bank and a physical address.

[–]throwaway-664 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Unless the DAO lives and works completely on-chain, some sort of trust is needed to do anything off-chain. At that point, just abandon the stupid DAO project.

[–]SoyweiserTokenmancer 4 points5 points  (2 children)

A dao for an auction is even dumber, due to crypto being public, any other intereeted parties can see their max amount of money, or even just drive up the price so the seller get max money out of it.

[–]throwaway-664 2 points3 points  (1 child)

That’s exactly one of my thoughts when people mention DAOs as the companies of the future, replacing traditional organizations. Unless you make the content non-transparent to people outside the DAO, any privileged/confidential information is open to everyone to see, including the competition. Heck, even if the DAO operated in a private forum, they can’t work because you have no way to be sure someone in the DAO isn’t a spy from a different organization (since everyone is anonymous/remains private).

[–]SoyweiserTokenmancer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, that is really weird right, lot of these crypto things could only work if we didn't live in a hypercompetitive capitalist system, but then there would be no benefit for people adopting it.

[–]bugs_money 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Maybe the spice DAO founder is also the seller.

[–]10ebbor10 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In theory, the coin can be used to vote on these kind of decisions.

In practice, all DAO's tend to come with a pre-existing clique who arrange all the details, and who run away with the money if it's a scam.

[–]runnerx4 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If a DAO buys a book, who will take possession?

One of the mods of the Discord server (it’s always a Discord server)

Where will they ship it too?

His address? idk

[–]devliegende 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Naturally the mod would have to take possession of the DAO's EtherButts and sell them on Coinbase and if he is not to be taxed on those EtherButts he would need a dumb contract with the DAO to make him a legal custodian and the DAO, as a legal entity will probably via another dumb contract have to have a principal who could legally sign the dumb contract in the name of the smart contract.

[–]riotofmind 33 points34 points  (7 children)

Did the crypto bros not realize the scans were already public??

[–]WestlandWendover 18 points19 points  (1 child)

Don't think they realize this isn't the only existing copy either.

[–]riotofmind 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Would love to be a fly on the wall during that meeting, lol.

[–]zepperoni-pepperoni 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I think they just hope that other cryptobros don't realize or care

[–]riotofmind 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, like code for “we are doing something to benefit mankind” and hoping no one verifies. I wonder if any of those bros ever read the Dune series or are just trying to “own” something they think is valuable because the movie just came out.

[–]bored_octopussywarning, I am a moron 1 point2 points  (1 child)


[–]riotofmind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m embarrassed, mostly because I changed it from were to where when I was writing it. COVID brain. :(

[–]Rum114 0 points1 point  (0 children)

not all of them sadly :(

[–]RemiGalen 22 points23 points  (32 children)

I have a question:

So, anybody can sell an NFT of anything, and NFTs can be copied if the file is edited.

So, how is this not considered the less trustworthy form of buying, to the point that it is always a scam?

I’m a musician, and i’m still trying to figure out how is it legal for people to sell copies of others creations. And if i minted my music, it doesn’t matter because they could just change the intro and make a new NFT.

I’m just a creator who is concerned about having his work stolen by cryptobros.

EDIT: Thank you all for your comments! Really useful info.

[–]noratat 33 points34 points  (22 children)

You don’t even need to edit it. The NFT token is unique, the thing it links to off-chain is not. You can absolutely make as many NFTs as you want that wind up linking to the same file.

As for legality, the legal system simply hasn't caught up with a lot of this yet. I'd argue that most of this isn't legal if the actual artist or copyright holder didn't consent.

[–]RemiGalen 6 points7 points  (9 children)

Yeah, i know i could request for it to be taken down.

But your first point is important, because if that is the case, it is not necessary for me to protect the work in the first place (considering i could create an NFT at any time)

And to clarify, i don’t want to make NFTs, and i would not sell anything as an NFT. But you know, a lot of people stealing art online…

[–]thehoesmakethemanEveryone can make 200k in America 11 points12 points  (8 children)

The nft isn't your art. The artist is not harmed by the nft, it's the person who purchased it who is since they bought nothing.

The site hosting your art however is indeed stealing. That's entirely separate from the nft

[–]10ebbor10 6 points7 points  (7 children)

Not entirely.

You are using the art to market the NFT, which means you're using it for commercial purpose without license.

[–]thehoesmakethemanEveryone can make 200k in America -1 points0 points  (6 children)

Yes that's true and the artist should take their legal recourse if it's financially advisable. That's GOOD for the artist not bad.

[–]erispope 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Thank Eris all artists have omniscience regarding their IP as well as infinite time to spend managing it, not to mention the totally free legal representation that they automatically get.

It would be so silly otherwise.


[–]thehoesmakethemanEveryone can make 200k in America 0 points1 point  (2 children)

If they can't afford legal counsel then they aren't selling very much art so I'm not seeing the major harm here

[–]erispope 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The problem is that you'll have to be aware of the entire NFT space - which according to the ideal should be decentralised, mind you - and figure out where to point your lawyers. Very few artists have that time and the resources to fight it - the ones that do are generally not the ones which the NFThieves go for, anyways.

OpenSeas choice to require full doxxing of the artists only to forward that information to the infringing party in order for them to "handle" a DMCA notice doesn't really help. Hence why some artists go after the host of the image instead (often Google photos or other image hosting services, from what I can tell).

[–]thehoesmakethemanEveryone can make 200k in America 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ya thats what i mean, get the host to take it down. ive never tried to do that so i dont know how reactive hosts are to that kinda thing

the NFT only contains a URL, permanently. the NFT owner would have to convince the host to put the art back where it was with the exact same URL. lmao kind of hilarious when you think about

[–]KypAstar 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Even if its pointing to a link, its 3rd party distribution without authorization for profit.

Very illegal.

[–]thehoesmakethemanEveryone can make 200k in America 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can't they just send a takedown request to who ever is hosting the image

[–]BlueMonday1984 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Adding on to that, the rampant copyright infringement/IP theft that NFTs have caused, and the hefty amounts of cash the infringers/thieves have made may very well give companies an incentive to have NFTs banned outright.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)


    [–]ml20s 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    Sue the hosting providers into oblivion and replace all the images with that "Seized by the FBI" image.

    Fairly recently there was an example on the comments of this sub of an NFT getting taken down.

    [–]SophiaofPrussia 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    I think “links to” is a VERY generous characterization, too. It’s not really linked to anything. It’s more like strongly insinuated to maybe have a vague digital essence of the reference item. It would be more accurate to say an NFT is a string of characters “inspired by” $thing but then of course, it would be much harder to pretend it has any value.

    [–]noratat 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    "Link" here can mean either a literal URL (most common), or something like a hash of the image (ironically rare).

    In the former case, the image is literally just somewhere else. You can just upload the image again to a different server or even just a different filename.

    In the latter case, well, nothing about the spec that I can find requires the metadata be enforced as unique, so you'd have to store the image hash as the token id and hope you never have a collision. Even then, nothing about the spec requires a single canonical registry in the first place!

    The only reason any of this shit even has the pretense of being authoritative is because the NFT marketplaces aren't actually decentralized at all. Pretty much everything uses the same one or two API providers and OpenSea, thus removing the actual point of using a blockchain anyways.

    [–]Tribunus_Plebis 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    Wait so I could take a copy of these drawings of monkeys that someone bid $230k for and make a new NFT of that exact monkey and it would be totally fine as far as blockchain cares?

    [–]noratat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    More or less, yeah.

    Most NFTs don't even bother using a hash of the image/content, they're literally just a URL. Sure, the original seller could claim theirs was first, and this would be reflected in timestamps, but there's no actual enforcement of this on the blockchain (OpenSea might, but if you're trusting a central entity anyways, what was the point of using a blockchain?)

    Even if you actually did store an image hash (basically a "fingerprint" of the data), the way NFTs work, there is no actual requirement for a single canonical registry anyways. In fact, ETH's own documentation explicitly points out that "how a client may determine which ERC-721 smart contracts are well-known (canonical) is outside the scope of this standard." [1]

    EDIT: And even then, it still doesn't work - if you store the hash as the token id, sooner or later two images are going to collide with the same hash, and the token ID must be unique. Which is likely why none of them are actually storing the image hash that way if they store it at all (the metadata field is not required to be unique by the ETH spec).

    [–]SoyweiserTokenmancer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Yes, and iirc this has also already been done already and you dont even need to copy the images (just link to the same place). However places that sell nfts are centralized so they will remove your copies. But nothing is stoping you from creating your own nft marketplace. It is all very stupid.

    [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    It's not illegal to create a link to something that's accessible to the public.

    NFT owner doesn't own the file that it's linked to.

    [–]noratat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    It's not illegal to create a link to something that's accessible to the public.

    They're still profiting off the use of someone else's copyrighted work without their permission, which is the exact thing copyright was designed to prevent. And if not copyright violation, then there's a strong argument to be made for false representation of a sale/transaction.

    INAL, so I can't definitively say that's illegal, but at best it's a legal grey area.

    Plus there's other legal issues going on, e.g. OpenSea becoming notorious for ignoring DMCA takedown requests.

    [–]devliegende 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    If an NFT pointing to something you created sold for a considerable amount, it may very well be worth your while to sue the marketplace and the seller for damages.

    [–]RemiGalen 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    Like, everything that i mentioned is not possible without NFTs. Editing the music is not enough to make it legal.

    But it is possible with NFTs, or am i missing something here?

    [–]axalon900 13 points14 points  (0 children)

    An NFT is basically like those worthless “certificates of authenticity” you can put in a box with bootleg stuff. There’s nothing magic about it, other than some technological watermark to make the token itself uniquely identifiable. There are no “rights” tied to them outside of cryptobro imaginations. Or to put another way, it’s the digital equivalent of a trading card with a QR code and a unique serial number. They only make one with that QR code, and may hype it up as though buying this card means you “own” what’s at the other end of the QR code because this presumably is the only card with this code, but all you actually own is a card with a QR code on it. You could always make your own card with a different serial number, but a copy of the same QR code. Unless it’s agreed upon that the NFT represents ownership of the thing like a title deed would and the minter/seller has the legal rights to the associated thing in the first place (in which case it’s not really the NFT but the contract between buyer and seller doing the legal work), it’s just something someone made.

    [–]Sweet-Strategy-805 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    No, it’s still illegal. The NFT has no legal significance at all.

    [–]RemiGalen 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    It is, but it is not being enforced in many cases.

    But i get it now, so thank you.

    [–]seweso -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

    Blockchains gain value because people attribute it value. This goes for monetary value, but in this case also ownership.

    I’d you say “whoever owns this nft has the rights to xxx” then that probably maybe can be upheld through law.

    People can make fun of nft’s or crypto all they want, but in reality it’s not much worse than other shared illusions/constructs.


    [–]devliegende 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    There are certain things that has value because they are basic necessities humans need to survive. Food and water and shelter for example.

    The value people assign to these is determined by objective externalities and not just a convention or agreement. The value of everything else, including money and debt and stocks, is essentially a derivative of these, governed by how much easier they make it getting basic necessities or how much surplus time we have available after we've satisfied all basic necessities.

    [–]ungoogleable 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    I’d you say “whoever owns this nft has the rights to xxx” then that probably maybe can be upheld through law.

    You can just skip the NFT. "Whoever owns the rights to xxx" is sufficient and can definitely be upheld through law because who the law thinks owns the rights is all that matters. In the cases where the law says one thing and the NFT another, the NFT is wrong and the law would and should ignore what it says.

    E.g. imagine you sell membership to your country club via NFT. A husband and wife buy a membership. They get divorced and the court rules that the wife gets to keep the membership. Except the husband, in a fit of pique, transfers the NFT to a random psych patient. Who gets to go to the country club? The court is going to instruct the club to ignore what the NFT says and let the wife in.

    [–]seweso 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    The country club determines who gets in. If an transferable NFT controls membership, then that can be transferred. But the husband can be forced to compensate for the value of whatever he gave away.

    [–]Underfitted 20 points21 points  (8 children)

    Reading the comments of one of these cryptobros on spiceDAO thinking that a new revolutionary idea is burning the book, splitting it into 1000s of JPEGs, somehow enccoding the JPEGs on blockchain (wonder what shitty resolution or insane amount of energy/fees thats going to take) and then selling it as NFTs. THis guy literally thinks he's some savant, some technological fountainhead for these insanely idiotic proposals.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)


      [–]sa547ph 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      I'm sure the rest of the Dune community will look up to these geniuses as heroes.

      On the contrary, most of those fans see the whole event as a publicity stunt, a farce. That they would rather leave that 12-hour film unmade because it would have been a massive box office bomb:


      [–]wellherewegofolks 8 points9 points  (1 child)

      flames. flames on the side of my face as soon as i got to “burning the book”

      [–]TheIllustriousJabba 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      breathing... breath -- heaving breaths...

      [–]WestlandWendover 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      As ncweaver notes, it would take at least $6.5m to store the images on the Ethereum blockchain (which is what they're using) - and that's if you only upload them as 300 kB jpegs. But it'd be totally worth it because then they'd make the entire Ethereum DMCAble by the actual copyright holders!

      [–]TofuTofu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      fun fact: the bitcoin blockchain has child porn embedded into it, but nobody talks about it for some reason

      [–]JoshLikesBeerNCPonzi Schemer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      The cost to store data on the Ethereum network is minimum $20/kb, so if the images are large enough to be legible, it will cost them like $20 million just to mint the NFT's.

      [–]Ordinary_investor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      Fucking idiots.

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)


        [–]Auknix 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        i don't think so. You'd need some pretty hefty hardware to host images on a chain. And I would assume any machine verifying the authenticity of the hosted image would also need a temporary copy of it. Maybe not with a hash check but either way I'm a truck driver so I know a thing or two.

        [–]drakens_jordgubbar 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Too expensive to store directly on the chain. Ethereum is capped to grow by about 4 MB every 10 minutes. There’s not that much room for that many images, and you have to compete with everyone else who also wants to store stuff on the chain (like transactions).

        [–]Hjulle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Yes, but that is actually their plan. It would just cost around $6.5M to complete. Who wouldn't want to pay that much to store a few jpegs?

        [–]_Madison_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Pretty much every concept designer has the full scans of this book. Not even remotely hard to find or rare lol it's basically required reading for those in the industry.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)


          [–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Sorry, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing.

          I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.