> Now imagine if an artist makes a digital painting. Is that work of art any less meaningful or valuable? Of course not. But there's been no way to define an "o

> Now imagine if an artist makes a digital painting. Is that work of art any less meaningful or valuable? Of course not. But there's been no way to define an "original" in the digital art form, and so there's been no way to assign collectability to digital works of art. NFTs seem to provide a way for an artist and fans to collectively agree that some digital object is the original, and to treat it as such. Sometimes ownership of a thing doesn't matter if there is a psychological barrier to the product itself and its relationship to the owner. If we are talking about the ownership of an item in the traditional sense a painting then NFT's need to fall into two categories: Vanity: Private ownership for personal enjoyment. Here I find NFT's silly. People will duplicate the work if they have access to a digital file and run wild with it for the sake of personal enjoyment. This is where I think most NFT hate comes from and its not without merit. Investment: NFTs could indeed be used for issuing ownership, or even fractional ownership, where a work is displayed at its maximum potential (resolution/medium) and access to the display is owned and profit is split among owners. This is really the remarkable aspect of NFTs and I am not even sure you have to limit digital goods either. If we are talking about ownership of an item in the commissioned sense then NFT's make copyright and trademark infringement easier to litigate ownership if the work is used by someone who isn't an owner. It is hasty to hate NFTs. But it is ok to question their relevance in certain regards.