3 ms·

I suppose I am asking why people are concerned about this with NFTs then.

• Joeboy 5y ago
  Because, as I understand it, the idea of an NFT is to demonstrate some sort of "ownership" of a work of art. The issue I have is that they don't do that. An ownership document that can legally be duplicated and distributed ad-infinitum by anybody at zero cost is not an effective ownership document. Even for the novel and legally meaningless version of "ownership" conferred by NFTs. If Damien Hirst sells 1000 sharks, the buyers get the physical sharks themselves, I guess along with some falsifiable and legally meaningful documentation. They really do own the sharks, physically and legally.
  • miracle2k 5y ago
    But you can't duplicate the ownership document that is the NFT, at least not anymore than I can duplicate the ownership documentation of a physical piece. The situation is even legally the same - it would be fraud if I pretended it's the original, but legal otherwise. The difference is in the copyability of the work itself.
    • Joeboy 5y ago
      There's nothing technical stopping you creating further NFTs for the same work, and there's nothing legal stopping you selling them, unless you enter into a separate legal agreement that makes the NFT irrelevant. It occurs to me that selling an NFT is like entering an artwork into a copyright registry, then selling the paperwork (without the actual copyright). To be fair I can imagine the original copyright registration docs for eg. Gone With the Wind being worth something to collectors.