What I mean by no deception is the seller isn't lying about what they're selling. It's a jpeg connected to a hash on a blockchain. They're not claiming it's something more than it is.
If someone is willing to bid and pay ridiculous BTC for it, a fool and their money...
And as I said it does reflect poorly on Bitcoin Magazine for participating, it's an obvious cash grab.
Sure but the ways in which they try to elevate the perceived value of these jpegs they're selling has been entirely deceptive
There's a level of fair argument here, but all marketing is hype, the law only considers it deceptive if it lies about the nature of the product itself.
An iPhone ad will try to convince you to drop two grand on the new one because it has features Android has had for years, but if the iPhone actually does what is claimed, hyped up marketing doesn't make the product itself a scam.
If marketing overemphasising the value proposition of a product makes the product itself a scam, everything that's been advertised could be argued to be a scam.
I'd also add that actual ownership rights of the intellectual property behind the image you're often times buying is at best, purposely kept murky.
Yep that is true. I used the apes as an example however because they're one of the rare exceptions iirc - the terms clearly grant the owner full exclusive commercial rights to the work.
