Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah. A post-scarcity, open-source-like solution is letting people sponsor art creation. An NFT is creating artificial scarcity: one person thinks they "own" a digital asset. And there's plenty of agita when people don't play pretend with them: https://mashable.com/article/non-fungible-tokens-nfts-right-...
> An NFT is creating artificial scarcity: one person thinks they "own" a digital asset. This is true for most digital images, NFT or not... one person usually does own it. In either case, there is no scarcity for observers -- anyone can look at the image as much as they want. In both cases, people can even copy the image and it use it without the owner's permission, if that's what you're really concerned about losing…
But regardless, you make my point for me. It's just as illegal to copy somebody's NFT'd JPEG as it is any other privately owned JPEG. NFTs do not "share the values of open source software", which is about making it legal for people to freely use IP, more or less the opposite of the sort of free-market fundamentalist "who believes in intellectual property".