NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

Bundling a cryptographic hash with the original NFT assertion of content accurately describes the content the NFT was intended to be minted for.

Example analogy: an NFT is like a receipt for a baseball card signed by a player. If the NFT is minted when the URL to the content points to a baseball card for Player A (popular player rookie card), but someone hijacks the domain or the URL and changes the content of that URL to Player B (no-name player who only lasted half a season in the pro league), that hijacker has performed a misrepresentation/fraud. The hash doesn't prevent the content swap, but it provides assurance that the content still matches the original intent of the NFT minting.

Observation: there is an incentive for the buyer to maintain the content (or perhaps even to replace with higher value content) at the URL. Perhaps NFT owners can band together to form a co-op / condo association if an NFT-content host site/domain goes down to maintain it. The next set of features I keep reading about in cryptocurrency/NFT space is "governance", which could cover this type of responsibility.

That said, I suspect something along these lines may some day be the "killer app" that NFTs/smart contracts need but are currently missing. The scarcity of atoms combined with the public, immutable digital records on a blockchain ledger. Too bad we are 12+ years into the blockchain and I've yet to see a compelling use case.

The misconception seems to be that people think the owned content is inlined in the blockchain, when it more often is a URL in the NFT / on the blockchain. Hence, the proof of ownership is contextual around what content existed at the URL at the time of minting, which might change if the controller of the URL changes the content after minting.

Also, it’s very complex and definitely not a clear cut. For example, you can’t simply process the plastic disk you bought, called Music CD, and share the output with everyone, you can get into real trouble.

You can buy a plane ticket but whether you can give it back varies and you can almost never sell it, despite owning it.

You can own one aspect of something and not the other, for example you can own the right to make toys from a character but not the rights to make a movie.

You can own a Databese in Europe but can’t own it in US. You can own software patents in US but not on the Europe.

You can buy a very old house in central London but you can’t demolish it just like that and build something else.

In some places men can own women, in other places white colored people used to own dark colored people.

In some places you are allowed to rent your body for certain purposes or inject whatever you want to yourself, in other places you can’t do a lot of thing to yourself.

Also, the way you acquire your possessions is not a clear cut. Purchase is a common one but you can get things by participating or organizing mass murder, a common practice known as “war”.

You can also acquire things through inheritance, a popular option but not a clear cut too because the inheritance rules can change depending on your gender, age, race, nationality and the jurisdiction.

You can own a Gmail or HN account that you never bought and can be taken away at any time.

As you can see, ownership is a complicated concept. You can’t really pin down a property of ownership and say this is the test to determine if you own it or not.

NFT is just another complication but this time enabled through international computer networks(traditional communities would create registers and institutions to deal with ownership management).