Nfts, digital tokens, already exist. Their use, in the protection of copyright, is called drm. “Nfts” bring nothing new to the table of digital rights or copyright… And a whole host of stupidity.
They aren’t quite the same thing though. DRM only applies as a copyright protection tool so copyright owners can restrict who has access to a given piece of digital content. NFTs don’t provide that access right but instead act as a method of logging who has ownership of a given piece of content via a decentralized ledger.
The use-case from my understanding was that an NFT would be useful for updating the DRM access rights for someone assuming the content was sold and transferred to someone else. In addition, it would allow for the copyright holder themselves to continue to profit off of resold digital assets.
Essentially, that would mean DRM and NFTs would play hand-in-hand. An NFT isn’t much use if the server handling DRM and content delivery is gone. And the decentralized nature means that if the original DRM protocol or copyright owner changed, ownership would be easily transferable assuming the content is made available by the new holder or across products, like in-game skins.
Think of it this way: you bought a movie on Amazon that was later removed from Amazon due to a contract dispute. An NFT would give you the ability to own that movie on another platform, like Google Play instead of repurchasing it. Though at the end of the day, it’s all about creating a market for artificial digital scarcity.
Is it the best solution? Dunno, I’m sure there’s something better and more efficient that’s possible. Or the high seas lol
Again, all of this already existed and will continue to exist with or without blockchain. There is very little novel in the implementation details of the tokens. The people who got the idea for "nft"s didn’t come up with a new idea. This isn’t some new math. The only portion of NFTs that is new is the cooperative signing… Which again, isn’t a new concept either.
Right now, everything you described… Literally all of it… Ubisoft implements for their launcher and enforce with their drm solution.
Not advocating for it nor acting like it’s a brand new concept. Just describing why DRM and NFTs aren’t the same thing. You’re kind of being an ass with your tone for no reason.
It’s frustrating trying to explain the same thing over and over again…
The tokens are how drm works. The process of DRM is token validation and enforcement of intellectual property rights granted by tokens.
I don’t know how else to explain it. It feels like I am back at my original post. I don’t know if you understand any better or if you still have misconceptions about what NFTs are or what DRM is or if you still think there is some magic in NFTs.
That was the only argument about NFTs that seemed interesting. But instead we got stupid cartoon monkeys.
Nfts, digital tokens, already exist. Their use, in the protection of copyright, is called drm. “Nfts” bring nothing new to the table of digital rights or copyright… And a whole host of stupidity.
They aren’t quite the same thing though. DRM only applies as a copyright protection tool so copyright owners can restrict who has access to a given piece of digital content. NFTs don’t provide that access right but instead act as a method of logging who has ownership of a given piece of content via a decentralized ledger.
The use-case from my understanding was that an NFT would be useful for updating the DRM access rights for someone assuming the content was sold and transferred to someone else. In addition, it would allow for the copyright holder themselves to continue to profit off of resold digital assets.
Essentially, that would mean DRM and NFTs would play hand-in-hand. An NFT isn’t much use if the server handling DRM and content delivery is gone. And the decentralized nature means that if the original DRM protocol or copyright owner changed, ownership would be easily transferable assuming the content is made available by the new holder or across products, like in-game skins.
Think of it this way: you bought a movie on Amazon that was later removed from Amazon due to a contract dispute. An NFT would give you the ability to own that movie on another platform, like Google Play instead of repurchasing it. Though at the end of the day, it’s all about creating a market for artificial digital scarcity.
Is it the best solution? Dunno, I’m sure there’s something better and more efficient that’s possible. Or the high seas lol
Again, all of this already existed and will continue to exist with or without blockchain. There is very little novel in the implementation details of the tokens. The people who got the idea for "nft"s didn’t come up with a new idea. This isn’t some new math. The only portion of NFTs that is new is the cooperative signing… Which again, isn’t a new concept either.
Right now, everything you described… Literally all of it… Ubisoft implements for their launcher and enforce with their drm solution.
Not advocating for it nor acting like it’s a brand new concept. Just describing why DRM and NFTs aren’t the same thing. You’re kind of being an ass with your tone for no reason.
Sorry. I apologize.
It’s frustrating trying to explain the same thing over and over again…
The tokens are how drm works. The process of DRM is token validation and enforcement of intellectual property rights granted by tokens.
I don’t know how else to explain it. It feels like I am back at my original post. I don’t know if you understand any better or if you still have misconceptions about what NFTs are or what DRM is or if you still think there is some magic in NFTs.