Re nfts, I'm kinda not clear on the question, I think because we don't have a clear societal statement of what an nft is or is trying to accomplish. Literally w

Re nfts, I'm kinda not clear on the question, I think because we don't have a clear societal statement of what an nft is or is trying to accomplish. Literally what an nft is an entry containing with a url on a Blockchain with certain properties around non fungability. Saving that has almost no issue because distributing the bits in a blockchain is one of its fundamental purposes. Now saving the file referenced by the nft starts to become more interesting. My interpretation is that we should respect do whatever the rights holder wishes. If they want to allow saving, great, if not, then don't save. The problem seems to be the rights assignment of nfts aren't really communicated or standardized afaik. Some feel like the nft should represent the ownership rights of the work, some feel like they should represent the ownership rights of an instance which may or may not transfer the rights of the original owner. Some feel it should have nothing to do with rights transfer and instead just be it's own thing. Any of these stances (or others) are fine with me, and if any disallowed saving that seems totally fine. It would be nice if whatever scheme/contract was either standardized or easily identified for each work/nft. Images on the internet already have this problem and systems like creative commons attempt to help, something like nft-commons could really help make clear what rights are implied by the nft and thus which images referenced by nfts could be saved. So re ipaddresses what characteristic differentiates the from property? For them to be useful it would seem they must have pretty much all the same characteristics. I agree there could be a world where people could torrent whatever w/o repercussion, in the same way there could be a world where we didn't have to wear pants. It's not where we are, but we can imagine and reason about it. But even in such a world, should a singer not be allowed to make a contract where they sing but won't be recorded, or a contract where they are recorded only if the folks follow copyright law? Effectively isn't this what many trade agreements are, one country will give another favorable trade conditions X in exchange for Y which includes 'your population can't torrent'. The country voluntarily does so because X is worth it. In fact elsewhere in this thread someone said exactly this happened in their country. Should this contract not be allowed, why not? So I feel like even if you started in a world that allowed torrenting, if you allowed contract law, you would inevitably evolve to a world that disallowed torrenting, because that's a contract some people would want.