NFTs are supposed to be cryptographically secure and blockchain-tracked certificates of authenticity for digital goods. “This is a unique original work by so-and-so”. Any duplication wouldn’t have the same hash and thus is not legitimate.
There are plenty of good uses for this if you are of the mindset that digital goods need to be protected and proven as unique and original works. In a proper setup, it would negate the need for DRM and enable the legal sale and trade of digital media/games in the secondary market, by preventing unlawful duplication (piracy). This is beneficial because piracy, as GabeN prophesized, is an issue of service, not price. Consumers are typically willing to pay good money for good entertainment. They do not want to pay good money and find that a game is incomplete or poorly optimized, or to have less product (digital good) for the same price (physical good) (i.e., not being able to re-download after an arbitrary date, not be able to resell, lack of boxart, bonus content, etc).
NFTs do not solve the problem of proof of ownership. Nor can they. If someone steals it from you - whether by trickery, force, or any other means - it’s just as lost to you as any other stolen thing, digital or physical. (Not to touch on the fact that NFTs to date have just been URLs to web hosted media, i.e. ridiculously non-unique and insecure.)
Also, your whole paragraph about theoretical NFT replacement for DRM is just describing a different kind of DRM.
DRM is never about consumer rights, it’s about taking them away, it’s about making sure that the consumer never gets to own a piece of digital media and is always dependent on some online service so it can be revoked and resold. Because it’s ok when Disney sells you the same movie 5 times but not if you resell it once, right? 🙄
NFTs are supposed to be cryptographically secure and blockchain-tracked certificates of authenticity for digital goods. “This is a unique original work by so-and-so”. Any duplication wouldn’t have the same hash and thus is not legitimate.
There are plenty of good uses for this if you are of the mindset that digital goods need to be protected and proven as unique and original works. In a proper setup, it would negate the need for DRM and enable the legal sale and trade of digital media/games in the secondary market, by preventing unlawful duplication (piracy). This is beneficial because piracy, as GabeN prophesized, is an issue of service, not price. Consumers are typically willing to pay good money for good entertainment. They do not want to pay good money and find that a game is incomplete or poorly optimized, or to have less product (digital good) for the same price (physical good) (i.e., not being able to re-download after an arbitrary date, not be able to resell, lack of boxart, bonus content, etc).
NFTs do not solve the problem of proof of ownership. Nor can they. If someone steals it from you - whether by trickery, force, or any other means - it’s just as lost to you as any other stolen thing, digital or physical. (Not to touch on the fact that NFTs to date have just been URLs to web hosted media, i.e. ridiculously non-unique and insecure.)
Also, your whole paragraph about theoretical NFT replacement for DRM is just describing a different kind of DRM.
You’re describing DRM in another form and shape.
DRM is never about consumer rights, it’s about taking them away, it’s about making sure that the consumer never gets to own a piece of digital media and is always dependent on some online service so it can be revoked and resold. Because it’s ok when Disney sells you the same movie 5 times but not if you resell it once, right? 🙄