> This is also why NFTs are kinds stupid, because you totally can sell someone a NFT which "claims ownership rights" without selling them any ownership rights legally seen.
It seems that the only thing you own when you purchase an NFT is the NFT itself. Not a little jpeg that it points to; just the bit of code on the blockchain.
It's kind of tautologically stupid. You buy a receipt that states you own that very receipt.
It’s more like a deed. Even if you possess the deed, someone can still take you to court because they actually own the property. But a deed can still be a useful tool if most of the time whoever possesses a deed owns the house.
But if people buy deeds instead of the house itself (i.e. most NFTs) then the link becomes broken and the signifier of “ownership” is less useful.
Deeds are legally binding, NFTs are nothing at all. You can make as many or as few as you want, and they come with anywhere from 0 to full rights to the underlying. Also the "underlying" is literally just a URL with no restrictions. What it points to could just disappear one day and SFYL. Should have checked the JSON blob you were buying to make sure it pointed at IPFS or something.
Possession of a deed is not legally binding — if someone robbed your house and took your deed, clearly they don’t own your house.
The deed is only a signifier of ownership, nothing more. If you can prove in court that the possession of the deed itself was improperly transferred, the state will return the deed to the rightful owner. Or annul the old deed and create a new one. (At least in the US.)
Sorry for the delay, what I meant is that the concept of NFT has no protection under law whatsoever. It means literally nothing. It's a bearer instrument for nothing.
As you say, a deed is not a bearer instrument but the concept of home ownership which it symbolizes has legal protection.
> But if people buy deeds instead of the house itself (i.e. most NFTs) then the link becomes broken and the signifier of “ownership” is less useful.
And as it is used for digital goods, the signifier of “ownership” is already broken, as multiple people can have a copy of the item without their being any ownership conflict, unlike a house.
NFTs likely make sense in a context like a metaverse where the bit of code is the law, and owning a digital item is the equivalent of owning a physical item within the metaverse.
It seems that the only thing you own when you purchase an NFT is the NFT itself. Not a little jpeg that it points to; just the bit of code on the blockchain.
It's kind of tautologically stupid. You buy a receipt that states you own that very receipt.