The hell you gonna use a painting for then? Like it or not, there’s physical art and digital art. Both are easy to copy, so it’s good to have an easy way to indicate ownership of an original.

Why does anyone pay for art when they can just copy paste it? Why do people pay for an original when a copy is just as good? Do you just not understand the concept of digital ownership? It doesn’t even have to be something like art, you could own one of a million copies of a movie and the token gives you cryptographic proof that you’re allowed to watch and sell this movie to others.

The receipt still never decays, link rot is pretty useless when the token just says “This art/media/object belongs to this person” as long as the art/media/object still exists the token is proof of who actually owns it and (hopefully in the future) who owns the rights to it.

If the NFT site goes down you still have your NFT registered on a publicly accessible verification chain. Anyone with or without original NFT site can see you own something.

I get that it’s new and I get that it’s scary when such big technological changes are made and people are testing them out in the real world but they’re here to stay. They’ve proven to be quite useful to people who got into them because of the ridiculous digital art NFT price speculation trend.

Turns out, the receipts are basically as bullet proof as a torrent, seeded by a couple of million people. That’s why decentralisation is so nice, you’re on Lemmy, I assume you understand.

Copyright is something legal, so as long as the law is out of date, there’s no support for digital copyright transfers. But ownership and authenticity is certainly transferable.

Anything better than the “you’ll own nothing and enjoy it” state of the internet today. It’d be amazing to own my movies and be able to transfer them to anyone I want.