zxdplay | 149 Posted March 2, 2023 Author Share Posted March 2, 2023 2 minutes ago, Jeevan said: I mean, has someone purchased the NFT already, because you can't change a contract after the deal is done. So anyone prior to the restructuring can do what they want right? Once an NFT is sold, the protocol cannot be modified because the hash value has already been recorded on the blockchain. Once the NFT is created, the contract takes effect immediately and can only be deleted by the NFT owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkchylde28 | 1,546 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 5 minutes ago, zxdplay said: Once an NFT is sold, the protocol cannot be modified because the hash value has already been recorded on the blockchain. Once the NFT is created, the contract takes effect immediately and can only be deleted by the NFT owner. While true of NFTs, neither the NFT itself nor the blockchain actually contain or encompass the contract that you're stipulating in your original post. As someone said earlier (perhaps @Gloves), the NFT itself is simply a digital image somewhere out on the internet. You're wanting to tie the contract for licensing the rights to your Star Keeper IP to whoever buys an NFT from you, which is fine, but is technically a legally separate thing entirely at this point. To make everything official, you would still need to have paperwork officially signed, witnessed, filed, etc., in order for your licensing agreement to legally go into effect, regardless of who buys an NFT from you. As has been said multiple times in this thread, before officially proceeding, please consult a lawyer to go over everything with you and re-draft your contract so that any potential or existing issues can be circumvented before it's too late. Once you sell an NFT and get your contract signed, you're locked into whatever agreement was made at that time and cannot change it without the full agreement and consent of the licensee who signed it alongside you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxdplay | 149 Posted March 2, 2023 Author Share Posted March 2, 2023 48 minutes ago, a3quit4s said: Is this not just saying the branch owners have no access to anything in the mainline game? You need to really get more specific about what in the mainline game they have access too. I would suggest if you are serious about this you get together with a contracts attorney before you end up costing yourself more than you think. I wish you luck with whatever you decide to do and I’m out the door on this thread. Thank you for your feedback on the game licensing contract. I will carefully consider it, and try to find ways to minimize any loopholes. However, I really cannot afford to hire a lawyer. It would be great if any lawyer could help me review it for free. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fcgamer | 4,719 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 17 minutes ago, Tulpa said: You probably need to make that absolutely clear, as it looks like he wants to copy the original. I don't want to do anything I messaged him last night asking about doing a Famicom run of the title, as given his concerns over rereleasing the NES version, a Famicom version could be done completely hands off for him, all the while pleasing everyone else (collectors and gamers). That's what I said. Later, when he said about a Famicom version being okay, I further stated what I would (hypothetically) do, again for the sake of getting the game into the hands of gamers in what I thought was an acceptable manner for all. I misinterpreted the post where the OP talked about okaying a Famicom version, thus my response. The misunderstanding has been pointed out, thus mission aborted. Nothing off or malicious in my posts. As an owner of gaming IP, I understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of it and being mindful to the authors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fcgamer | 4,719 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 Another thing to point out, is the original contract in English or Chinese, are there multiple language contracts, etc? If so, there definitely needs to be a clause about which contract takes precedence should there be any discrepancies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OptOut | 8,881 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 1 minute ago, zxdplay said: Thank you for your feedback on the game licensing contract. I will carefully consider it, and try to find ways to minimize any loopholes. However, I really cannot afford to hire a lawyer. It would be great if any lawyer could help me review it for free. Oh man I'm losing it over here! Can't sell a game people want, but more than happy to shill BS NFTs... Then, asks a lawyer to review the contract for FREE, he says! I'm thinking about buying one of those NFTs right now, BEFORE the free lawyers get their meathooks into it... might make my OWN Starcrapper game, wouldn't that be something, lol! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxdplay | 149 Posted March 2, 2023 Author Share Posted March 2, 2023 (edited) 19 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said: While true of NFTs, neither the NFT itself nor the blockchain actually contain or encompass the contract that you're stipulating in your original post. As someone said earlier (perhaps @Gloves), the NFT itself is simply a digital image somewhere out on the internet. You're wanting to tie the contract for licensing the rights to your Star Keeper IP to whoever buys an NFT from you, which is fine, but is technically a legally separate thing entirely at this point. To make everything official, you would still need to have paperwork officially signed, witnessed, filed, etc., in order for your licensing agreement to legally go into effect, regardless of who buys an NFT from you. As has been said multiple times in this thread, before officially proceeding, please consult a lawyer to go over everything with you and re-draft your contract so that any potential or existing issues can be circumvented before it's too late. Once you sell an NFT and get your contract signed, you're locked into whatever agreement was made at that time and cannot change it without the full agreement and consent of the licensee who signed it alongside you. NFT has a link to the contract I have to break with convention. It's possible that this is the first time in history that an NFT has been used to authorize a game's intellectual property. Edited March 2, 2023 by zxdplay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxdplay | 149 Posted March 2, 2023 Author Share Posted March 2, 2023 13 minutes ago, fcgamer said: Another thing to point out, is the original contract in English or Chinese, are there multiple language contracts, etc? If so, there definitely needs to be a clause about which contract takes precedence should there be any discrepancies. Agreement in English only 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloves | 11,761 Administrator · Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 7 minutes ago, zxdplay said: I have to break with convention. It's possible that this is the first time in history that an NFT has been used to authorize a game's intellectual property. It's not the first time, no, sorry. CryptoKitties is the first that comes to mind - ownership of a CryptoKitties NFT allows the owner rights to commercialize and earn money off of that kitty as IP in any way they seem fit, as long as the revenue does not exceed $100k USD. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulpa | 3,488 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 (edited) 22 minutes ago, fcgamer said: Nothing off or malicious in my posts. As an owner of gaming IP, I understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of it and being mindful to the authors. Then why were you talking about your "engineering friend" pulling the game off of the original cartridge? You were talking about that before he said anything about the Famicom stuff. And what up with your posts a month ago before he even returned? Edited March 2, 2023 by Tulpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxdplay | 149 Posted March 2, 2023 Author Share Posted March 2, 2023 3 minutes ago, Gloves said: It's not the first time, no, sorry. CryptoKitties is the first that comes to mind - ownership of a CryptoKitties NFT allows the owner rights to commercialize and earn money off of that kitty as IP in any way they seem fit, as long as the revenue does not exceed $100k USD. Offline video games, probably for the first time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulpa | 3,488 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 26 minutes ago, zxdplay said: Thank you for your feedback on the game licensing contract. I will carefully consider it, and try to find ways to minimize any loopholes. However, I really cannot afford to hire a lawyer. It would be great if any lawyer could help me review it for free. If you're not a lawyer, you're not going to be able to close all the loopholes. And lawyers are not going to do this for free. It's a lot of work to make a contract that's ironclad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloves | 11,761 Administrator · Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 2 minutes ago, zxdplay said: Offline video games, probably for the first time I mean if you wanna be the first of a really really specific thing lol, sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulpa | 3,488 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 Just now, Gloves said: I mean if you wanna be the first of a really really specific thing lol, sure. Probably also the first boy in a jetpack game to be contracted through NFT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkchylde28 | 1,546 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 12 minutes ago, zxdplay said: NFT has a link to the contract I have to break with convention. It's possible that this is the first time in history that an NFT has been used to authorize a game's intellectual property. Unless the contract is contained within the blockchain and thus "written in stone" once the NFT purchase has been completed, nobody in their right mind would purchase an NFT as you're suggesting since you control the URL at which the currently-linked contract is kept and could change it at any time you wished. I'm not sure that such an arrangement would make the original contract legally binding if, in fact, it were legal to "sign" a contract solely by purchasing an NFT, since you would always have the ability to change any and all terms whenever you wished so long as you maintained control of the site the contract is kept on. I'm by no means a lawyer, but I don't believe there's currently any way for you to have a legally binding contract in the way that you are suggesting and desire. You would still have to have a separate agreement (on paper, digitally, etc.) via standard legal channels in order for any of it to be binding. And should I be wrong about the legality of your NFT-is-tied-to-the-contract concept, anyone realizing as I did that you controlling the contract at all times (since it's not "locked" be being in the blockchain once the NFT is transferred) would be a fool to give you any money for an NFT since you could take away any and all of their rights at any time by changing the contract since it's not immutable. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxdplay | 149 Posted March 2, 2023 Author Share Posted March 2, 2023 1 minute ago, Tulpa said: 可能也是喷气背包游戏中第一个通过 NFT 签约的男孩。 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fcgamer | 4,719 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 7 minutes ago, Tulpa said: Then why were you talking about your "engineering friend" pulling the game off of the original cartridge? You were talking about that before he said anything about the Famicom stuff. And what up with your posts a month ago before he even returned? No, he had said about a Famicom version being permitted, and at that point I erroneously misread it to mean that the original game would be permitted on Famicom format; at that point I mentioned that if the issue was about not having the source code, it would not matter as I feel confident that my friend could handle this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khromak | 768 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 This situation is the perfect example of why NFTs are so stupid and a solution in search of a problem. If someone wants to buy the rights to this IP, just write a contract and sell the rights to the IP. If you want to sell it to 10 people, write the contract so it can be sold to 10 people. If you want the people who bought it to be able to transfer their rights to other people in the future, write that in. All of these things can be done without a single NFT. The NFT brings absolutely nothing to the table except uncertainty, and legal grey area. This is why everyone hates NFTs, there's absolutely no reason this needs to be a blockchain project except for the trendiness and buzzwords, and "first time" stuff. It's really sad. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxdplay | 149 Posted March 2, 2023 Author Share Posted March 2, 2023 (edited) 6 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said: Unless the contract is contained within the blockchain and thus "written in stone" once the NFT purchase has been completed, nobody in their right mind would purchase an NFT as you're suggesting since you control the URL at which the currently-linked contract is kept and could change it at any time you wished. I'm not sure that such an arrangement would make the original contract legally binding if, in fact, it were legal to "sign" a contract solely by purchasing an NFT, since you would always have the ability to change any and all terms whenever you wished so long as you maintained control of the site the contract is kept on. I'm by no means a lawyer, but I don't believe there's currently any way for you to have a legally binding contract in the way that you are suggesting and desire. You would still have to have a separate agreement (on paper, digitally, etc.) via standard legal channels in order for any of it to be binding. And should I be wrong about the legality of your NFT-is-tied-to-the-contract concept, anyone realizing as I did that you controlling the contract at all times (since it's not "locked" be being in the blockchain once the NFT is transferred) would be a fool to give you any money for an NFT since you could take away any and all of their rights at any time by changing the contract since it's not immutable. I cannot alter it, my changes are ineffective. If you have created NFTs for Chia, you will understand that once you add the protocol link, if the content is not the same as the original content, the NFT becomes invalid. The hash value can be used to verify the validity of the contract. Edited March 2, 2023 by zxdplay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OptOut | 8,881 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 1 minute ago, zxdplay said: Offline video games, probably for the first time Hey, how much is this NFT of yours? I got a few ideas for your Star lad there... What do you think about the boy taking on an evil authoritarian empire led up by a despotic, pants-less, honey-loving bear? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khromak | 768 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 Oh, and the other issue with NFT and all this nonsense is they use the term "smart contract" which leads people to believe their projects are legally binding even though no lawyers were ever consulted, so once again it just introduces grey areas where eventually one or both parties are going to find out they were SORELY mistaken about what was being bought/sold and what was actually going to hold water in court when it comes to conflicts, ESPECIALLY in international matters. This is just a hot mess waiting to happen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloves | 11,761 Administrator · Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 Just now, Khromak said: Oh, and the other issue with NFT and all this nonsense is they use the term "smart contract" which leads people to believe their projects are legally binding even though no lawyers were ever consulted, so once again it just introduces grey areas where eventually one or both parties are going to find out they were SORELY mistaken about what was being bought/sold and what was actually going to hold water in court when it comes to conflicts, ESPECIALLY in international matters. This is just a hot mess waiting to happen Yeah the term "smart contract" is incredibly misleading; it's just some code that runs if/when something else happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulpa | 3,488 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 2 minutes ago, OptOut said: I got a few ideas for your Star lad there... What do you think about the boy taking on an evil authoritarian empire led up by a despotic, pants-less, honey-loving bear? Oh, no, it has to be the fully naked honey-loving bear. The pantless one is still with the Mouse House. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OptOut | 8,881 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 2 minutes ago, Tulpa said: Oh, no, it has to be the fully naked honey-loving bear. The pantless one is still with the Mouse House. Duly noted! Now THAT'S what I call free legal advice! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulpa | 3,488 Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 Dammit! Knew I should have made it an NFT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts