3 ms·

NFTs can actually be the opposite of DRM. They are ownership without exclusivity. It is literally impossible to prevent piracy, but we still want people that c

NFTs can actually be the opposite of DRM. They are ownership without exclusivity. It is literally impossible to prevent piracy, but we still want people that create art/music/games to get paid - NFTs are the solution to this problem. The artist gets paid, fans get indie bragging rights, and everyone gets to enjoy the content.

gitgrump 5y ago
Why would I bother with an NFT when I can already effortlessly copy bits? Digital property is not physical property and I'm not sure why people are still so intent on shoehorning the characteristics of the latter into the former.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> NFTs are actually the opposite of DRM. They are ownership without exclusivity. Their is no ownership without exclusivity. (And NFTs are exclusive; they just happen to currently mostly be used as pointers to non-exclusive items with no other meaning, but there is nothing inherent in the technology restricting them to that use.)
- TimJRobinson 5y ago
  > Their is no ownership without exclusivity. Why not? Plenty of people own parks and gardens that are open to the public. Art in galleries is all owned by someone but many are free for public viewing. Everyone getting to enjoy the thing while the creator still gets paid sounds like an awesome future to me.
  - scubbo 5y ago
    Those things you have described are still exclusive in that the owner _could_ prevent public access if they chose to.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Why not? Because “ownership” is the right to exclusivity. > Plenty of people own parks and gardens that are open to the public You can choose not exercise the right to exclusivity (or to do so selectively), but if you don't have it, you don't own anything. > Everyone getting to enjoy the thing while the creator still gets paid sounds like an awesome future to me. Sure, patronage of public art can be great, but it's not ownership (except maybe “ownership” of an exclusive right to receive some defined form of credit for the patronage.)
  - 8note 5y ago
    the control is exclusive. the owner can always put up a fence, or tell people to get off their lawn

gitgrump 5y ago

Why would I bother with an NFT when I can already effortlessly copy bits? Digital property is not physical property and I'm not sure why people are still so intent on shoehorning the characteristics of the latter into the former.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> NFTs are actually the opposite of DRM. They are ownership without exclusivity. Their is no ownership without exclusivity. (And NFTs are exclusive; they just happen to currently mostly be used as pointers to non-exclusive items with no other meaning, but there is nothing inherent in the technology restricting them to that use.)

TimJRobinson 5y ago
> Their is no ownership without exclusivity. Why not? Plenty of people own parks and gardens that are open to the public. Art in galleries is all owned by someone but many are free for public viewing. Everyone getting to enjoy the thing while the creator still gets paid sounds like an awesome future to me.
- scubbo 5y ago
  Those things you have described are still exclusive in that the owner _could_ prevent public access if they chose to.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Why not? Because “ownership” is the right to exclusivity. > Plenty of people own parks and gardens that are open to the public You can choose not exercise the right to exclusivity (or to do so selectively), but if you don't have it, you don't own anything. > Everyone getting to enjoy the thing while the creator still gets paid sounds like an awesome future to me. Sure, patronage of public art can be great, but it's not ownership (except maybe “ownership” of an exclusive right to receive some defined form of credit for the patronage.)
- 8note 5y ago
  the control is exclusive. the owner can always put up a fence, or tell people to get off their lawn