• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    NFTs weren’t created to be the proof of ownership of digital art, they just happen to be associated with that because that’s what the majority of them were created for.

    The NFT isn’t the art that can be copy-pasted to any computer, it’s the proof of ownership. Criticizing them by saying “I can just download a copy of the picture!” is like saying copyrights are useless because you can use tools to rip movies from streaming services, sure you “own a copy”, it doesn’t make you a rightful owner of it from the perspective of the law.

      • NecroSocial@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The intrinsic value of any art is what someone is willing to pay for it.

        For example the world’s most expensive NFT, The Merge by Pak, sold for $91.8 million. Its price was higher than the sale of Jeff Koon’s Rabbit, the most expensive artwork by a living artist at auction. It’s all about personal tastes and how deep folks wanna dig in their pockets with this stuff.

    • qaz@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      NFT’s also don’t implicitly make you the rightfull owner. The basketball NFT’s content still explicitly belongs to the seller. The only true way for NFT’s to work for digital content is to have a contract that specifically states that the NFT proves ownership, but you might as well write it directly in the contract at that point.