Seriously, I want to know. How did this happen to you? Was your common sense dazzled by math?
Personal attack is also completely off limits, and you did it more than once in this thread. No more of this, please.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: it turns out that you've been breaking the site guidelines so badly and so repeatedly that I've banned the account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll use HN as intended in the future. Among other things, that means no more comments remotely like these:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32005073
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32005050
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31992691
(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32010891.)
In USA, I can't see why proof of purchase and TPB wouldn't be enough. Platform issues don't negate the rights you purchased.
Why would these stores use NFTs attached to ownership licenses when they could just reword their ToS to include ownership. They don’t want to sell ownership to begin with so they would never use NFTs either.
it's not very insightful to say that people like money and will seek it or avoid losing it (descriptivism)
Yeah, the symmetric key would probably leak quickly, and the content decrypted and shared, the point here is to make the system so convenient and simple that it discourages piracy, which you can never fully beat anyway.
Yugalabs[0] assign copyright license to whoever owns the NFT on the chain forever.
So if someone mints a NFT, they get a perpetual license to use it however they like. The downside is if they lose the NFT for any reason such as theft, they lose the license as well.
Other NFT projects of yugalabs store data on chain or use a separate storage chain built for permanence. This basically means they cannot take the content down once they have uploaded it and attached it to a NFT.
However this doesn't solve anything unless corporations are forced to accept it as the only way to sell content.
One big problem it may solve for corporations is uniqueness and validation of all license in existence through a ledger. If a company sells their content exclusively via NFT, they can take advantage of immutable receipt system and built in programming capabilities to embed royalties on transfer. This would make it hard for people to sell their copies without giving companies a cut. Legally, that is. Nothing stops them from ripping off a copy and selling it but it would be easy to prove it is invalid and enforce via legal system.
0] Yugalabs is a big NFT IP company valued at 4 billion. They are behind monkey jpegs which are called BAYC.
Why not just say "An NFT is a glorified receipt, the most it can possibly do is prove you purchased something but you can already do that with a regular receipt." without the rude and spiteful attitude?
[citation needed]