News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Metakovan, the mystery Beeple art buyer, and his NFT/DeFi... by sneak on Tuesday March 16, 2021 @11:36AM (#26478211)
> If I minted an NFT that said for every period you paid you could collect royalties from my art then you would have a valid contractual claim after purchasing it, even if I didn't make the deal with you initially.

I don't believe this statement to be accurate.

Re:Metakovan, the mystery Beeple art buyer, and his NFT/DeFi... by Rule35 on Tuesday March 16, 2021 @03:19PM (#26481548)
I don't think it's plausibly true now because of the complexity of that contract and the difficulty in expressing it, jurisdictional issues, etc.

But if all that was handled and it was considered binging between you and the first guy then I don't think the transferability would phase a court at all. The NFT by nature, being meant to be transferred, and with tools to prevent that where desired, would indicate intent.

Perhaps a better example would be me (the hypothetical creator of cryptokitties) selling a cryptokitty, with the obvious implication that I would not modify my game to invalidate said kitty. The final owner of the kitty, like yourself, could sue me for misrepresentation for selling a product I intended to disable. Perhaps for tortious interference.