entertainment

Roll up: NFT's magical mystery now includes Beatles memorabilia

13 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

13 Comments
Login to comment

Best wishes always for Julian Lennon, first son and a rightful heir to John’s legacy.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Hey, Jude(Jules)”, after “Let it Be”, is absolutely one of Paul McCartney’s greatest songs. It still gives comfort and livens the spirits of many, worldwide, for generation upon generation.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

NFTs are yet another ponzi scheme to part the gullible from their money.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

This is Boomertastic news. They just lurve The Beatles and consider them the greatest musical act of all time. But when the last Boomer has left this sad vale of tears, will The Beatles still be the GOAT?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

most NFT’s are counterfeit and fraudulent.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Dear Ego Lux etc…

The reputation of the Beatles rests as much on the social changes they wrought on their time and on succeeding generations as it does on their music. When that sad day comes when the last of those of us born between 1945 and 1965 leave this vale of tears, it will be more the job of historians of popular music to determine how much of that legendary status was justified, and how much it may have been gilded, like the lily. In the meantime, any really juicy Julian-retailed NFTs, along with all the other accumulated assets of the elders, will long since have passed into the hands of much younger persons in the biggest transfer of wealth in human history. So if you yourself are a younger person, and you hope to inherit your share of what’s going, I’d watch my Ps and Qs if I were you.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The hope for peace was part of John Lennon’s legacy. Some may enjoy seeing Julian & Sean together in the following video from 2010, warmly embracing, both speaking candidly about their love for one another (both mums were there as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYQENKq9gIo -
-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Google will explain the mountain of fraudulent NFT’s.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NFTs are a 'con' only in the same sense that crypto is. Both are entirely artificial, virtual assets. You can make money off them, but they are a higher risk than most investments.

A ban on mining crypto for environmental reasons would make it rare and push the price up. A ban on transferring BitCoin into real cash could leave you only able to spend your savings in El Salvador, where it is legal tender.

NFTs are not an environmental risk, but as they have no physical substance, they retain value solely by consensus. You need at least one other person to value your NFT as much as you do (and be willing to buy it). They are not underwritten by the guarantee of an issuing national bank.

You could say the same about gold or old master paintings, but in both cases you have something tangible that people ascribe value to. Not so with NFTs.

Although crypto is banned in China now (and several other countries), NFTs are not. So NFTs might still be a good way of getting cash out of China. For that reason, they may soon ban them too. I doubt they comply with the ethics of 'Communism with a Chinese spin'.

For the rest of us, a global digital currency, fully underwritten by USD or Yen [being banked as we purchase it], that could be moved via distributed wallets, would be much better. It would be particularly useful for citizens of badly run countries, where the economy may slide, taking any savings held in the national currency down with it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I have four great guitars for sale, '71 Stratocaster hardtail, Japanese Epiphone acoustic, Hofner bass, 'Rocky" Stratocaster. You can't have them but I will sell them... and throw in a Fender Bassman tube amp.

Your analogy explains your confusion.

NFTs are not analogous to the rights to a guitar, they're analogous to the rights to the recording of a song played on that guitar.

For an old-school analogy that explains how NFTs work, lets look at the Neil Young vs. Spotify issue that arose this week. Neil Young owns the rights to the recordings of his songs. Until this week, he has given Spotify permission to distribute copies of those songs, which is what listeners play on their devices when listening. This week Young exercised authority as the owner of the rights to those songs to rescind his permission to Spotify to distribute those copies. Spotify, not wanting to be used for copyright infringement, has complied. Other humans can still go out and find copies of Neil Young's songs. But Neil Young owns the rights.

The digital asset an NFT represents can be copied, the same way a song can be copied. An NFT is used to document and verify ownership of digital assets. A copy is not ownership to the rights, it is only a copy, and misuse of that copy opens one up to lawsuits for copyright infringement.

Spotify was previously allowed distribute copies of Neil Young's songs, due to him, the rights holder, giving them permission to do so. He didn't record new versions for them, they made copies of the original, and distributed those copies. Young's rights to his songs are documented in a verifiable manner, proving his ownership. NFTs do the same thing by documenting ownership of digital assets in a verifiable manner. The owner of the NFT is then conferred the rights to determine how that NFT can be used by others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People criticizing NFTs are only exposing their own ignorance of what an NFT is. Criticizing the usage of NFTs as an investement/gamble is fair - that is a market that could explode at any given time, and it's extremely volatile and risky. But anyone who thinks that's what NFTs are, then criticizes NFTs because of this, is only exposing their compelte and utter ignorance of what an NFT is, and why they have value in the first place.

They're generally the same idiots who are ignorant to the value of cryptocurrencies, and the reality that they are never going away, simply because some people have been willing to do risky gambling/investment with them.

Some people are ok with exposing themselves for being low-intelligence and willfully ignorant, by posting criticisms that expose as such. I'd be embarrassed myself. But I guess they need someone like me to point it out so that they can even realize that they have something to be embarrassed about.

Note: I don't own, and have never owned an NFT. But unlike pretty much ever person who thinks they're witty but just ends up exposing themselves as being not very intelligent, I actually understand what an NFT is, how it works, and why it has value. And also unlike said ignorant folk, if/when I create a digital asset for which I want to ensure my rights are documented, I will register said asset as an NFT. You know, the actual reason NFTs exist. Actually, reading through the comments, most of you probably didn't know that.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites