I make it clear what that "ownership" means - the right to control that token on the blockchain. I make it clear that it is not enforced by any legal framework, just the blockchain. What is your issue?
The issue is that you also told this lie: > Just like a deed conveys ownership of a house at some address, the token conveys ownership of that media.
Happy to update it. Better?
Again, if you don't like specific wording, I invite you to write a better explanation for regular folks which is simultaneously perfectly accurate in every sense in every phrase and word you use.
> The value of an NFT is in having the right to insert yourself into that story, as the owner of that work, and with the ability to transfer that right to another person (i.e. selling the work). This is a false statement. The NFT doesn’t make you the owner of ‘the work’. It makes you the owner of the NFT. > The same way purchasing a painting gives you the right to resell that painting and prove to others that you are…
>This is a false statement. The NFT doesn’t make you the owner of ‘the work’. It makes you the owner of the NFT.
Doesn't the same logic apply to paintings/prints? If you buy a painting from an artist, is there anything preventing the artist from making a copy/replica? As for as I know, selling a painting does not constitute a transfer/assignment of copyright. The only difference here seems to be that paintings are analog, and take more effort to duplicate than right-clicking.
> The value of an NFT is in having the right to insert yourself into that story, as the owner of that work, and with the ability to transfer that right to another person (i.e. selling the work). This is a false statement. The NFT doesn’t make you the owner of ‘the work’. It makes you the owner of the NFT. > The same way purchasing a painting gives you the right to resell that painting and prove to others that you are…
> It makes you the owner of the NFT.
Not sure if this is true. Some NFT's on resale money goes back to the original artist I thought? Which to me means you don't own it outright.
From a recent conversation with a (soon to be) lawyer [as I understand it] software typically uses what's called a "shrink wrap contract" [1] wherein the _usage_ of the product implicitly accepts a license. As far as I can tell, nothing in the ERC721 standard (for example) has any provision for such a legal instrument to be included. As such, I don't see how NFT "ownership" can (currently) be construed to possess any…
Similar to buying a signed print from an artist—no contract involved, no legal transfer of copyright or intellectual property, no claim to anything except ownership of the artist-signed artefact. In the case of NFT it is mostly equivalent: claim of ownership over the artist-signed artefact (the token).
You’re presuming ownership universally means copyright. It doesn’t. Ownership is as much a cultural norm as a legal one. Owning the NFT, in certain circles, allows you to participate in an alternative cultural norm of ownership, decoupled from copyright ownership.
Would you like to participate in an alternative cultural norm of ownership of a bridge in Brooklyn?
Depends on the context. For example if it meant I was the only one able to spawn the bridge in Meta’s Horizon, maybe?
> If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), Wrong. > I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own. Yes, you contradict yourself. > Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none . Yes, which is not what you say in the parts I quoted - let’s remind ourselv…
Unless you own the NFT, you can’t hang up the piece in cryptovoxels. That is ownership.
So wait, now we're going back to relying on centralized authority to determine the validity of the token? Seems, say, self-defeating in a sense.
You’re presuming ownership universally means copyright. It doesn’t. Ownership is as much a cultural norm as a legal one. Owning the NFT, in certain circles, allows you to participate in an alternative cultural norm of ownership, decoupled from copyright ownership.
The thing about cultural norms is that they're only meaningful if they're accepted by the prevailing culture. Based on this thread, I would say NFTs are not. So what exactly is the point of an "alternative form of ownership" that is only considered valid by a small subculture and not society at large? Is it really ownership in any meaningful sense?
NFTs are considered ownership in nascent online societies. There is no “at large” society. Even nation state recognized ownership in terms of copyright has its limits.
> If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), Wrong. > I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own. Yes, you contradict yourself. > Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none . Yes, which is not what you say in the parts I quoted - let’s remind ourselv…
Unless you own the NFT, you can’t hang up the piece in cryptovoxels. That is ownership.
No it’s not. It’s just a ticket to enter cryptovoxels.
I don't fully agree with your characterization. I'm more in favor of: Stealing the painting = hacking the wallet/private key to transfer the NFT Taking a picture of the painting = right clicking
> Taking a picture of the painting = right clicking Absolutely not. A pic won't ever provide you the same satisfaction as standing in front of a painting, that's an innate characteristic of paintings. Right clicking a JPG , saving it on your laptop and looking at whenever you want gives you the exact same satisfaction as paying 100k USD for the work of art. Matter of fact it gives you way more satisfaction, because y…
Listen, I despise NFTs as much as the next guy but this is a pretty gross mischaracterization of what these people are buying into. You're not buying a raster graphic, you're buying a hash that points to your wallet on the blockchain. Yes, both are equally as asinine in the grand scheme of things, but conflating them is just outright wrong. Paintings are trivial to replicate, people don't buy them though because it's not "the original". With NFTs, that concept of having the "master copy" is what drives their entire economy.
You’re presuming ownership universally means copyright. It doesn’t. Ownership is as much a cultural norm as a legal one. Owning the NFT, in certain circles, allows you to participate in an alternative cultural norm of ownership, decoupled from copyright ownership.
I tried to understand what you said but it ends up indecipherable like a koan. In this case, this koan confers a monetary benefit to the self-appointed Zen Masters of crypto. For only a few dollars the followers get a little sticker that says "Enlightened".
Concretely there are a variety of metaverse projects which only allow you to spawn the item if you own the (creator sanctioned) NFT.