4 ms·

I'm still struggling to see how NFTs gaurantee that the true owner of the original asset minted the NFT. It seems to me it's perfectly possible that I could min

I'm still struggling to see how NFTs gaurantee that the true owner of the original asset minted the NFT. It seems to me it's perfectly possible that I could mint an NFT of the same art work that Beeple minted. Or indeed Beeple could mint another NFT of his work on a different blockchain and disavow the ethereum based on NFT - mugh like when you have to go and re-buy all your movies on Blu-ray. It's kind of more akin to ownering a limited edition print.

timoth3y 5y ago
> It's kind of more akin to ownering a limited edition print. It's more like owning a receipt for a limited edition print. You have no rights to the print itself, but you do have distributed proof that you paid for a receipt with a URL that references said print. With the added downside that you have no control over what the URL will point to in the future.
pornel 5y ago
Indeed, NFTs don't work with copyright. There's no guarantee that the seller owns legal rights to the artwork, and you can't override copyright with blockchain woo. It's perfectly possible to end up owning a token without any right to use the artwork it claims to represent. So this isn't really a solution to unclear property rights, because buyer and seller can't even agree to ignore copyright. The real copyright owner can send authorities after them, so artwork purchases have to stay in the realm of real contracts and copyright. This reduces NFT to a convoluted payment method. And if anyone is happy to own just the token, without any legal right to display or use the image it points to, they can drop the whole pretense that it's about art, and admit it's just a gambling chip.