Nike Wants To 'Destroy' Unauthorized NFTs -- How Will That Work? (decrypt.co) 88
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Decrypt: When a company like Nike finds someone using its brand without permission, it can ask the courts to order the unauthorized goods to be destroyed. Nike has done this in the past, but its latest trademark lawsuit comes with a twist -- the products it wants to "destroy" are NFTs, which are inscribed permanently on the Ethereum blockchain. The case in question involves Detroit-based StockX, a site that lets people buy and sell used brands, including Nike sneakers. [...] In a complaint filed last month in New York federal court, Nike accused StockX of ripping off its brand in order to cash in on a "gold rush market" for NFTs. As a remedy for StockX's alleged infringement of its trademarks, Nike wants the company to turn over its profits and stop the NFT sneaker sales. It also wants a judge to "order that StockX be required to deliver to Nike for destruction any and all Vault NFTs."
According to Alexandra Roberts, a trademark law professor at the University of New Hampshire, it's fairly common for companies to ask to destroy goods that infringe their IP -- there's even a law that entitles them to do that. But whether a court will grant the order is likely to be informed by what the brand owner is looking to destroy. Where do NFTs fit into this? It's an open question since the courts have never had to address it before. And even if the New York court agrees to order the destruction of the StockX NFTs, there's the question of how exactly Nike would go about doing that.
Records on the blockchain show that StockX has indeed inscribed the NFTs on Ethereum, which means they are indestructible except in the extremely unlikely event that developers agree to fork the blockchain to get rid of them. According to some, the most practical thing for Nike to do would be to send the NFTs to a so-called burner wallet. This wouldn't destroy them but still achieve the same purpose: "This means that the best outcome for a brand that is seeking to have NFTs destroyed may be to have them sent to a burn address, which still does not actually destroy them but renders them incapable of being transferred anymore," writes the Fashion Law Blog.
According to Alexandra Roberts, a trademark law professor at the University of New Hampshire, it's fairly common for companies to ask to destroy goods that infringe their IP -- there's even a law that entitles them to do that. But whether a court will grant the order is likely to be informed by what the brand owner is looking to destroy. Where do NFTs fit into this? It's an open question since the courts have never had to address it before. And even if the New York court agrees to order the destruction of the StockX NFTs, there's the question of how exactly Nike would go about doing that.
Records on the blockchain show that StockX has indeed inscribed the NFTs on Ethereum, which means they are indestructible except in the extremely unlikely event that developers agree to fork the blockchain to get rid of them. According to some, the most practical thing for Nike to do would be to send the NFTs to a so-called burner wallet. This wouldn't destroy them but still achieve the same purpose: "This means that the best outcome for a brand that is seeking to have NFTs destroyed may be to have them sent to a burn address, which still does not actually destroy them but renders them incapable of being transferred anymore," writes the Fashion Law Blog.
Isn't an NFT a link? (Score:1)
From everything I've understood so far, an NFT basically contains the equivalent of a link. It's not like it contains actual image data.
So couldn't they simply remove whatever was at wherever the NFT was pointing to? That would make them worthless. Or heck, with the NFT market the way it is maybe broken link NFT's 10x in value, but at least then it's no longer tied to any Nike imagery.
Re: (Score:1)
From everything I've understood so far, an NFT basically contains the equivalent of a link.
Yeah, this is what DMCA Takedown notices are for. Get the image pulled and the NFT becomes a dead link. If the image is hosted somewhere outside the reach of the DMCA, too bad Nike. Have a good cry over a cup of coffee with the MPAA and RIAA.
To be honest, I'd love to see NFTs turn into a minefield of intellectual property lawsuits, and like Grumpy Cat said, I hope they both lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Bittorrent links could also be fine for NFTs, it'll be a session of whack-a-mole.
Would probably work on IPFS (Score:2)
DMCA takedown won't do shit on IPFS stored content.
IPFS is really just a fancy hashing algorithm with some sharing aspects in the system where a file could be stored on more then one server and retrieved by the hash - but each of those servers that hold the file the hash points to could have DMCA takedown notices filed against them...
But think about it from a big picture standpoint. The whole point of NFTs is them being unique, right, so if you are spreading an NFT image across a lot of servers aren't you
Re: (Score:2)
but each of those servers that hold the file the hash points to could have DMCA takedown notices filed against them...
The NFT owner, or any other interested party, could just keep a copy of the file offline. An IPFS content ID (hash) is normally used to retrieve the content from the network, but it can also be used simply to verify that you have the correct data. Also, anyone with a valid copy of the file can add it back to IPFS at any point with the same CID, making it available once again to the rest of the network.
There is also the fact that this is a trademark dispute, whereas the DMCA is for copyright claims. Presumab
Re: (Score:1)
There is also the fact that this is a trademark dispute, whereas the DMCA is for copyright claims.
That is a really good point.
It's the NFT which is unique, not the image
True but most casual NFT users consider that the same thing even though it's really not.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, anyone with a valid copy of the file can add it back to IPFS at any point with the same CID, making it available once again to the rest of the network.
... as long as IPFS stays online forever, and doesn't change their URL path scheme. I don't see IPFS dying next year, but do you think it'll exist, in the exact same form and URLs, 50 years from now?
Re: (Score:2)
I think in 50 years we'll still know how to verify that a given file matches a 2022 IPFS content ID, whether or not IPFS is still in operation or using that form of ID. It is unlikely that the algorithm would simply be lost. The actual means of sharing the file may differ, but it's easy to assemble an index to translate between different IDs as long as you have the original file. Some manual work may be required if the format changes but that doesn't make it completely unusable.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of NFTs is them being unique, right
Anyone can see the blocks, find every URL, and copy every bit of media to which it points and store it on their hard disk. There was one guy that did just that: https://financialpost.com/fp-f... [financialpost.com]
I think (?) the point is more about asserting ownership. If you own the block that points to some media, it can be said you own that media. I don't think most people get that they are buying a link, and a link, being just a pointer to some impermanent storage medium can 404 at any time, then you own nothing... and yo
Re: (Score:2)
... because who's going to pay for the hosting for these terabytes of NFTs indefinitely.
If the NFT is minted properly (unlike these so-called "NFTs" from StockX which have no metadata, much less any link to an image, much less a hash of the associated image file...) the buyer of an NFT can just save the file(s) themselves and ensure that they are made available (pinned) in IPFS when they want to sell the NFT or show it off. An IPFS URL is determined by the content, so it's only permanently broken if the content no longer exists anywhere. There is no need to rely on anyone else for hosting. Eve
Re: (Score:2)
Just generate a lot of cheap NFTs pointing to Nike sites and vendors and they will DMCA themselves, revamp their site all the time - or buy the NFTs to destroy them.
It will just keep Nike busy for a while.
Also - if someone is able to figure out how to crack the NFTs then they will be FTs and worthless.
Re: (Score:1)
It actually costs money to mint NFTs, which is how the scheme really works. A handful of NFTs sell/get wash traded, and then a whole bunch of suckers buy up Ethereum to mint NFTs, thinking they'll cash in on the gold rush. Just like previous gold rushes, the real money is in selling shit to the miners.
Re: (Score:2)
So, next up is Nike suing anyone selling sneakers on eBay or Craigslist when they have the audacity of posting a picture of what they're selling? GM suing Autotrader for posting pictures of vehicles for sale? Amazon would be a huge target for everyone.
Seems like all the value here is the link/contract, which allows the owner to trade it for a pair of shoes. If the link currently points to a picture, Nike _might_ have a weak argument for taking that picture do
Re: Isn't an NFT a link? (Score:2)
I'm taking a wild guess that someone took the swoosh, turned it into a NFT image like Bored Apes/Raping Apes/whatever it's called, and the swoosh is being traded amongst drug addled losers as "artwork" for thousands of real dollars. Honestly, I don't really understand it all because it's all bullshit, a giant waste, and I want it all to die soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by the missing image in the article that purports to show the NFT, it looks like someone figured this out.
Silly article. NFTs are indestructible. Lol.
Re: Usually. (Score:2)
I can imagine some digruntled person seeding the chain with CP and making a few calls to the FBI.
Sounds expensive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. You just destroy the link target. I.e. delete the image from where ever that NFT is pointing to.
Re: (Score:2)
Google "rug pull". That's how folks in on NFT craze have been doing that since the beginning. Just replace the link target with an image of a rug. Idiot who bought NFT of a specific image, still has the same link. It's just that image it's pointing to now is now an image of a random rug instead of whatever the image it was pointing to at the point of purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok ,toddler. One word: Enron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad the OP was explicit in what they meant for an NFT-based "rug pull." You don't have a monopoly on the meaning of terms. They can expand over time to mean additional things.
Just replace the link target with an image of a rug. Idiot who bought NFT of a specific image, still has the same link. It's just that image it's pointing to now is now an image of a random rug instead of whatever the image it was pointing to at the point of purch
Re: (Score:2)
"Real public company" means fraud is impossible. Also that capital X in the name in fact gives it even more credibility! Must be that capital X that makes it "real" rather than just a public company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they sell used NFTs with "guaranteed authenticity"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You already explained that you don't really understand the subject above. Now you're explaining that you don't even understand the things you use in your analogies.
It's funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the only way to be able to explain NFTs according to you is to be invested in them either via working on them, or writing papers on them?
Yours must be an interesting world to live in, where human cognitive ability as we understand it just doesn't exist as a tool to grasp abstract concepts. But then, with every post in this thread, you certainly demonstrate an appalling lack of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Increased chinese communist trolling activity lately seems to suggest that word has actually reached comrade Puh on the shit that happened to Russia in the wake of Ukraine war, and the fact that PRC will have to rework their entire plan for long term future that was built over last five decades or so.
Which means that propaganda bots like you need to buy as much time as possible. Even someone as utterly useless as you can actually serve your country for real now.
So for the first time in your miserable failur
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I add capital X to my name, would it make you believe me?
Re: (Score:2)
Brave of you to assume I care about opinion of the members of a Chinese troll farm. But I do enjoy the projection about "modpoint farming".
Now how about you go back under the bridge, or have a friendly talk with the Russian Orcs and let me have nice banter with that other guy. Shoo.
Re: Sounds expensive (Score:2)
Haha
Re: (Score:2)
That's too simple and destroys the cryptofetishists fantasy that NFTs are real and indestructible. I'd prefer the court directly ask for the full destruction of the NFTs to those capable of doing it IE the people running the etherium network because everyone's behaving like crypto-currencies are untouchable and beyond the law, it's time to correct that BS by throwing a few of the founders in to prison for facilitating money-laundering.
Re: (Score:2)
NFTs are pretty close to being indestructible. But NFT is just a link. Contents of the link are hosted elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Indestructible my arse, the people that can fork etherium are the people that can wrote code to do whatever with it.
Re: (Score:2)
But the old fork remains in your scenario. Forking something doesn't destroy the original. People abandoning the original does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most blockchains do have some ability to hold data. You can write information into them. Satoshi did, into the genesis block of bitcoin. But this data and the blockchain itself is "indestructible" like a popular movie on bittorrent. It's tough to get rid of all the copies, but you can suppress it as brutally as you want.
At some point someone will write something very illegal into a blockchain, probably a little bit at a time. Then that chain will have to be rewritten, or expose everyone who downloads it to
Just sue the developers. (Score:2)
NIKE can afford that. And they'll gladly fork over (GET IT!!!) the blockchain if THEIR asses and money is on the line. [wikipedia.org]
You just have to be rich enough and ask them nicely.
Or tie them to a radiator and start applying power tools to their sensitive areas - if you're poor. You know... like most NFT suckers out there.
Re: (Score:2)
To move the tokens to a "burner wallet", I assume you would need the private keys to whatever wallet they are currently in, presumably the wallets of those who have purchased the tokens.
Normally, yes, but in this case that doesn't seem like it will be a problem since—so far as I can tell—StockX only minted the tokens. They never transferred them to anyone else, so there are no other private keys involved. If you "bought" one of these tokens you weren't actually the owner registered on the Etherium blockchain, and you couldn't trade them outside of StockX's "Vault" system where they maintain their own separate, off-chain "ownership" records. There doesn't seem to be any metadata
The more important question: "why should I care?". (Score:3)
Nike and other fashion brands are as big as they are because they make and sell products for pennies on the dollar by persuading people that they're somehow better than the cheap alternative. They advertise heavily to turn their mediocre products into "status symbols", to the point that people are so desperate to fit in that markets appear for knock-offs.
It's hard to feel sorry for companies that make so much money for selling so little, who would fold in a week if it weren't for their pervasive advertising. It follows that it's physically impossible for me to give a single shit when their dilemma involves such an obvious fad/scam as NFTs.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much every company in existence would fold without advertising. The problem is you conflate advertising and putting up billboards or showing 10second clips on Youtube. Advertising and marketing itself is far larger, you walk into a supermarket you did so because of advertising. You'd literally not know where to find a supermarket otherwise, companies pay money to put their name on their buildings. When you do and see the products, that's the result of advertising, companies pay money to put their pro
Re: (Score:2)
The Washington Redskins lost their trademark for less.
Fuck Nike.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets not forget how they manage to make their products for so little. Chinese slave labor.
John Cena does not agree with that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
... they'll issue takedown notices (Score:2)
Nike keeps lawyers on retainer and this is what lawyers do. Hell this is a bonanza to them. It's easy work and you don't have to worry about a backlash since pretty much everyone hates these stupid scams.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just give them to Nike (Score:2)
If you can buy NFT's, then the court can order them turned over to Nike as property they own. While normally Nike would destroy them, they can instead simply take permanent possession of them.
Note, the typical reason NIKE destroys counterfeit products is they neither want to own them (taking up warehouse space) nor do they want to sell them, thereby damaging their brand. As NFT's do not take up any significant space (besides a few electrons), owning them does not present a significant problem.
There's not much they can do, (Score:2)
Poorly... (Score:2)
Short circuit (Score:2)
Because the copies are better, as usual ? (Score:1)
It's really just an image file.
And I have a higher resolution file of the same image.
So that was a bit of a waste of money.
Why bother? (Score:2)
Even the few exceptions are in some instances hilarious. I've seen auctions where someone was selling a physical original song composition (e.g the scrap of paper a Beatles song was composed on) and also 100 NFTs of the picture of it. One of these sales gets
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think people are fooled though. Cryptocurrency - whether legitimate or not - at least appears to have utility. Money is useful after all. NFTs really aren't. Most people don't really want "own" media, and those who do tend to have to be businesses who have to be able to make an actual business case for these purchases.
There might be something
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and also 100 NFTs
And, why not 1,000,000 NFTs? Maybe they ran out of bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Save them to a wallet and destroy the drive? (Score:2)
Can't they put them in their virtual wallets, write the private key on a piece of paper, save to HDD, and throw HDD in the bin, eat the piece of paper? Or do NFTs not work like Bitcoin. I hear enough stories about bitcoin wallets being effectively destroyed (which is to mean they can't ever be accessed or the funds used again). I'm genuinely curious, do NFTs work the same way?
Re: (Score:2)
That said, you can send a token to black hole and it will be unaccessible but will still exist on the chain.
Blockchains vulnerable to court rulings? (Score:2)
Doesn't this mean that entire blockchains are vulnerable to legal action? What if a court someday decides to order that data be deleted from a blockchain? This might be hugely inconvenient for large numbers of people but the law sometimes doesn't care about that. It's like when a company or government body is required to delete all their copies of certain data but there's no way to delete it from things like their offsite archives without physically retrieving and rewriting huge datasets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The blockchain itself is stored by legal entities. If a court orders the entities to delete something on the chain then, barring successful appeals, that's what they'll have to do. This isn't like ordering someone to decrypt something for which they don't have the key, because deleting something from a blockchain is definitely possible. Worst case: you just delete the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they very much potentially are. If not the chain itself than at least the ability for anyone to legally access it within a given governed region certainly is.
All should reasonably take is for someone to embed a tiny kiddie porn gif or something along those lines and accessing the chain could be come a crime. It would effectively deny it to entire market places.
Oh, can you wear an NFT now? (Score:2)
Just destroy etherium and bitcoin (Score:1)
The best solution is to delete the etherium and bitcoin journals.
There was never a guarantee it would be around or anyone would get anything out of it in the first place. Easy come, easy go.
So, want to buy more Etherium or Bitcoin?
Re: (Score:1)
Intresting article (Score:1)
Re: Intresting article (Score:1)