Hacker News Reader

NFTs provide proof of ownership of something unique, not enforcment. You are still free to put any jpeg you want on any profile pic you want. Like you can reproduce and hang a multi million dollar painting on your wall without enforcement but that provides no proof you own the original thing.

I do not get the argument that an algorithm for decentralized proof of ownership of an unique token has any moral attribution to it. If anything it enables a future where content creators can get income for their content without the ad industry (youtube, major labels, facebook etc) getting any cut. And that could lead to the erosion of IP laws all together.

We are already seeing experiments with distribution of royalties implemented with NFT smart contracts of today and the tech is still in it's infancy both in implementation and applications.

The reality is that good content, be it art or media, needs revenue for the content creators to produce content. Currently their options are limited to censoring themselves in the name of profit because profits are gatekeeped by the ad industry via the monopolies of google facebook and amazon.

A future where digital economies are decentralized and self sufficient, where anyone can publish and make royalties via the uniqueness of holding the "original" work of content and all future developments in this space is a future I look forward to.

As the article rightly points out NFTs do not provide proof of ownership of the underlying asset just of the NFT itself. And even that’s only true if you choose to view them as bearer instruments. The law governs ownership of the underlying not the chain. Divergence will always settle in favor of the law.

Yes, just like a house ownership contract by itself is just a piece of paper and is independent of the underlying house. And to prove your ownership of your house that contract must be validated by a central authority - a goverment.

A house ownership NFT on the other hand requires no central authority for validation and complete strangers can exchange that house without a central authority being involved in proof of trust, and the buyer can immediatly charge rent based on his new ownership of the house. Thus removing several layers of bureaucracy.

Indeed, enforcment against mallicious misapropiation of ownership still requires a central authority with monopoly on violence.

>it laments the death of open-source culture

Imagine a world where contributors to an open source project earn royalties from, say, FAANG using the open source project based on ownership of their contribution. Is that the death of open source culture or the rennisance?

> That's not the bridge too far. It's not about the JPEG, it's about the bullshit shoehorning of 'ownership' around infinitely-copyable bits put in place by a culture that seems to care more about ownership than equality.

> Digital economies are a land of plenty, where nobody can own anything and bits copy themselves freely. NFTs shoehorn a scarcity economy on top of that, which suits those with no concept of the reality of the digital world. NFTs and DRM have no place in cyberspace, yet here they are.

Wait, I'm confused. In the first part you mock the idea that NFTs amount of 'ownership' since its infinetely copyable. but the next sentence you bemoan how NFTs are introducing artificial scarcity and are like DRM.

Parent's central argument seems to be that creators of digital content do not deserve ownership of or royalties for their work because bits are infintley-copyable...

>The world is a much better place without enforcement of "ownership".

Then you will have no problem if I move in with you, kick you out of the house you own then charge rent on your house?