Would you buy a music-related NFT?

Two tickets to Sex Pistols at Bridgewater Hall, please.

Yeah, this. It’s not like the idea of intangible property rights is new, this is just one of those things where I think it becomes overly complicated as soon as anyone says “ok so it’s like if there was an exchange of a physical object, but…”

No. Stop there. There not being a physical thing to exchange changes everything.


I can make you an NFT but due to supply and demand it will cost you £50,000. And like all NFTs it is utterly meaningless.

I am still oscillating about it, as I hope some of my replies have shown.

Web3 is so many different things. It isn’t just NFTs, obvs.

It’s the certificate that could be attached to a physical object or a file or a patent for an idea… or a stem in a track, so the songwriter and performer could get paid if the stem was used :crazy_face:

Also - why should re-sellers then to get set a price for something? How is that fair and equitable?

Incentivising rotten behaviour imho. Reminds me of when the ticketing sector had a shot at getting touting outlawed but instead decided to get in on the action.


That’s just a digital download though.

Except there’s a finite, defined number and you can theoretically sell it on at a market driven price with some of that money going back to the original issuer?

Is that right?

I guess Sault could have done that with 9. Digital download was free but now not available by legal means. So, if it was somehow protected from copying, would have demand driven value.

At which point access to music would increasingly become the preserve of the wealthy, no? Or at least piracy would step in and the artists are worse off again.

1 Like

tbh the smart contracts thing seems relatively potentially useful, but imho recorded music has no inherent value once digital, easily-shared media is a thing.

Personally, I still think the idea of musicians making a massive amount of money from recorded music is stuck in a very specific 50s-90s paradigm, and is propped up purely for the benefit of larger companies who still exist.

This imho applies to any media that can be easily shared digitally (films and academic journals are the ones that immediately spring to mind). Possibly extremely 00s Pirate Bay attitude, but it just makes more sense to me, and would ultimately be better for creators/academics/the general public. Would require some degree of societal adjustment though, and we’re so far from having that be a possibility now that it’s almost laughable.

1 Like

Is there much reselling of NFTs going on? If the idea of them is that you can resell them, presumably at a profit, is that actually happening or are people only buying new ones (given the near limitless supply)?

It’s the former but not the latter. An NFT proving ownership doesn’t in itself grant you any property rights over the thing - it’s just the certificate of authenticity, not the thing itself. If it was a patent it would grant you legal rights to stop (first) sale, use, etc of the thing. An NFT doesn’t have value originating from any actual legal rights in the thing.

:musical_note:That aint working (that’s the way you do it)
Money for nothing?
Sell an NFT! :musical_note:


I think what Sean is getting at is that there is the kernel of something in the NFT stuff, maybe…but it’s very, very hard to imagine it at this moment in time, and it probably won’t end up being quite what we are seeing now.


Be curious to see what Reddit end up doing. Little thread here

Thank you for sharing this! It just prompted me to finally delete the Reddit app from my phone.


MARLON: What’s going on, Roscoe? The world feels different somehow

ROSCOE: Hmm. Yes, as if we have been awakened somehow

MARLON: I thought our arcs had ended pretty cleanly when we discovered the Sacred Crystal to Thendendredor and used it to defeat the Dragon Mayor?

ROSCOE: I don’t know what you’re talking about but sure why not

THE TRUE GAMER: Oh sick hi Roscoe and Marlon


MARLON: Who is this man

THE TRUE GAMER: Aw it’s me the True Gamer! Crypto investor extraordinary. I bought you fucks as NFTs

MARLON: But we’re owned by Manches, aren’t we

They look out the window to see MANCHES wearing a proper fucking swish coat and he’s driving a limo full of supermodels

MANCHES: Yeah I sold the rights to you guys, but it’s still not enough to get me on the path to wealth so I had to go full-time at my supermodel limo driving job. The uniform is proper fucking swish though so swings and roundabouts

BELLA HADID: God damn it Manches, quit fucking around - Argos shuts in half an hour and I’ll be right merked if I have to wait another day for that bread maker

GISELLE BUNDCHEN: Oh shit lads can you image being able to make our own bread

KARLIE KLOSS: We’ll save so much money on bread expenditure in the long term!

MANCHES: Yeah and I bet the bread is really nice straight out of the-

BELLA HADID: You can get your own bread maker then HURRY UP AND DRIVE

MANCHES: Seeya lads!

MANCHES drives off with his clientele so they can get their bread maker

ROSCOE: Well this is a turn up for the books

MARLON: Yeah. So what do we do now, then, Mr. True Gamer person

THE TRUE GAMER: Oh man! Can I take a photo of you with your tongue out doing gang signs


forgive me if this is already covered but… because that’s not how buying things (physically) works? I realise that it absolutely sucks for you and people in a similar position to invest loads of money in financing a record, not recoup that money, make a loss and then see the second hand market boom. However, if I buy a record, I’ve bought it. It’s mine. I can listen to it every day or I can leave it in its shrink-wrap. I can use it as a frisbee. I can give it to my mate for Christmas. I can sell it to my mate, or on discogs or whatever cos it’s mine. That’s how it works.

I do get with the car thing mentioned upthread how cars are monitored on a national database and so with hire/purchase agreements and leasing etc the question of ‘ownership’ can be more complex but, surely to goodness, this couldn’t work with records? Who on earth is going to ‘hire purchase’ a 12"? ‘Yeah mate you can buy this record but if you re-sell it then you need to give x% of the profits back to us…?’ how on earth is that enforceable or practical for records? You’ve got two fundamental problems: practically how would it work and philosophically you’d have to change the very definition of what ‘buying a record’ means.

I think the car analogy is a bit of a red herring - the government knows you own your car so that it can enforce taxation/insurance and send you speeding tickets. Nobody’s not going to update the registered keeper when they sell or buy a car because nobody wants to pay tax on a car they don’t have. If there were a database of ownership of 12"s what’s the similar incentive for anyone to keep it up to date?


To be totally honest, if a record can sell out and turn a loss, that’s a massive structural issue with the industry. It is something that just shouldn’t be possible.

Fixing it via charging re-sales is super dopey logic.



Interesting use of web3 by Holly Herndon