I make it clear what that "ownership" means - the right to control that token on the blockchain. I make it clear that it is not enforced by any legal framework, just the blockchain. What is your issue?
> Just like a deed conveys ownership of a house at some address, the token conveys ownership of that media.
Again, if you don't like specific wording, I invite you to write a better explanation for regular folks which is simultaneously perfectly accurate in every sense in every phrase and word you use.
Not really. The original document contained an outright lie which have now removed because it was exposed.
If you didn’t accept it was a lie, you wouldn’t have removed it.
This has nothing to do with imperfect accuracy. It has to do with you writing an outright falsehood.
The idea that a lie stops being a lie because of the number of words you say later is obviously absurd.
As I have pointed out this is a motte and Bailey fallacy.
Also, it’s still a completely misleading statement. The change to ‘similar to’ doesn’t make it true. It still isn’t true, only now you have some wiggle room to claim it’s not a lie.
You are still trying to misleading people into thinking that NFTs confer ownership of the media.