Owneruleship
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

but isn't that their point? i was always confused by this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    No.

    What you're buying is a non fungible token on a specific contract. This contact may link to an external resource for the image. It should be IPFS but some contracts link to a specific IPFS gateway. Either way [with IPFS] the link contains a cryptography secure ID of the image. Sometimes the contract just links to a private website.

    The owner of the NFT does not own the image and certainly not its copyright. They own a number inside a specific "smart" contract.

    The copyright owner can also legally make another NFT for the same image set. In fact I think anyone can because the links to the images on IPFS aren't copyrightable. Although [regular] contracts and defamation law might mess with that. Although they can't then change the original smart contract outside its logic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    So, I get what you mean. Think about it more like this. Gold is expensive, right? People want gold because it's valuable. But what if gold was way more inconvenient to move around. Like if it was way bigger. That's not desirable. You want it to be valuable, but not expensive to manage. (Security aside, because obviously you want to protect your valuable things. But even if gold was inconvenient to work with and you had a lot you'd still want security.)

    Cryptocurrency Blockchains give the miners rewards for working, but there are also transaction fees. The miners get that too. If the amount of data you're storing in the Blockchain is bigger, then the fee would be bigger. Which isn't good.

    I hope that clears it up lol, I don't know if I made sense.

  • source
  • parent