You've got to ask marketing to who though? For example supporting BAYC only nets you 10,000 people at the very most after all. Which is less than 1/5 of the peak concurrent users on Second Life.
Also looking at where NFTs are supported Twitter Blue takes an expansive view. As long as you've minted on a platform they support you get the PFP. That means people can easily clone others paid for pictures which has already caused friction. So owners of expensive NFTs don't really get the exclusivity they might feel entitled too.
And ultimately even if the holder does get a broad IP license they still need to actively defend it for it to mean anything.
There are some growing pains to be sure, but by and large, NFTs come with an IP license, despite your belief to the contrary.
Your argument is akin to someone ranting, after the development of photographic prints, that a print is a malicious lie and you do not own anything in any legal or moral sense.
2. Increasingly, most savvy NFT projects provide, and savvy buyers demand, even greater IP rights. For example, here are the IP terms for Bored Ape Yacht Club (one of the top NFT projects in the space): https://boredapeyachtclub.com/#/terms
Note that BAYC grants the NFT holder not only a license to use and re-sell the NFT, but the right to commercially exploit and create derivatives of the image itself.
Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it?
I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights.
As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy them, it seems so strange to me though.
It seems like the person you're responding to is raising a legitimate criticism of NFTs, or at least, criticism of the touted benefits of them: an NFT provides absolutely no value to its owner unless there's some kind of enforcement of the "property" rights it suggests. If I own an NFT of a JPEG, there's nothing to stop anyone else from simply right-click-downloading that JPEG and hosting it somewhere else. At that point, my NFT is just me shouting "dibs!" to a room full of people who don't care.
> I agree that right now it would not make much financial sense as there's a lot of vehement hatred of NFTs out there
I would consider that it's less “vehement hatred” rather than “clear understanding of the limitations”. The backlash comes from proposing NFTs where they don't provide an advantage. For example:
> Although perhaps for anything manual that is involved that person that owns the NFT could hire someone to adjust things so it works better in the game they're wanting to play, assuming there are tools included with the game to do so.
The problem here is that the person who owns the NFT doesn't own the rights to the assets. If the people who do want to grant permission to modify and reuse those assets, they can do so without paying significant amounts of money to a third-party.
Similarly:
> Just taking it as it is currently on a profile pic level, we see that Twitter supports NFTs officially now with Twitter Blue, and Discord seems to be on the verge of supporting it, and possibly more sites in the future, and even if other sites don't support it officially, unofficially you could use an NFT as a picture anywhere (even those you don't own of course, but most people in these spaces do seem to stick with those they own). That's taking an NFT and using it in multiple platforms, and companies having a financial incentive to include support for it, right there.
This is like Gravatar except that it costs hundreds of dollars, and it actually doesn't give the companies a financial incentive to include support for it unless they start selling NFTs. If they wanted to charge you to upload a profile picture, they could do that already and it's unclear why anyone else would want to encourage that.
Yeah, when I realized you don't actually "own" it through any licenses it made me sour on the whole idea.
Is there a reason why people couldn't be granted a license to do whatever they wanted with an NFT? Seems kind of arbitrary to do so, but I'm sure there's a reason why it's like that.
Isn’t the point of NFTs that it verifies ownership, not “you’re the only one that can access the content” (although there are indeed NFTs that can only allow the owner to decrypt the content)? It’s like video game cosmetics - many people can have the same skin, but people you want to impress or show off to can see that you own x, y, and z.
That's the best part. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate. If you want to copy an NFT's image and use it as your wallpaper without paying, you can still do that.
On the other hand, if you voluntarily would like to value an NFT by purchasing it, that's your option as a consumer.
Don't like it, don't buy it. Seems simple enough. Contrast this to the existing structures of copyrights and intellectual property. NFTs may not enforce ownership rights in the same way as other mechanisms, but they do commodify existing voluntary relationships.
A better question might be why the premises of subjective valuation and voluntary association upset so many individuals?
Why must we all agree upon a standard of value? Different consumers have different desires.
Thing is actually assigning IP rights to the owner of the NFT should be trivial as some projects have done. That it’s not done or the IP rights granted are explicitly limited suggests people get that and want to retain ownership of the rights whilst selling the token.
I know what an NFT does. It doesn't even give you ownership on anything other than a blockchain print. To me, the logical conclusion of this is copyright protection, where, say, an eventual platform only plays content where the player can only be verified as the owner.
Also, why would you accept another game's NFT? What is the present value of the marginal users who choose to play your game because it accepts their NFT avatar?
Most people don’t understands existing IP laws (see what results you get when searching YouTube for “no copyright intended”); adding a new one isn’t likely to improve the situation, so I don’t accept that there is (nor that there is likely to be) a real social consensus in favour of NFTs.
How many NFTs are giving you full ownership rather than just a license to link to the content on their servers? Please cite sources.
(Hint: it's a lot smaller than the number of digital assets which have been truly sold in the history of the internet. This is not a technical problem.)
Also looking at where NFTs are supported Twitter Blue takes an expansive view. As long as you've minted on a platform they support you get the PFP. That means people can easily clone others paid for pictures which has already caused friction. So owners of expensive NFTs don't really get the exclusivity they might feel entitled too.
And ultimately even if the holder does get a broad IP license they still need to actively defend it for it to mean anything.
reply