|
|
|
|
|
by yellowapple
1904 days ago
|
|
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it, too, but I think the idea is that there's ostensibly value in "legitimately" owning a work, as opposed to making your own copy. That is: it's proof that the work is "for" you. Currently it seems to just be a status symbol, but I feel like it could evolve into a newfangled version of license keys - i.e. proof that you're authorized to have a copy at all, or that you're licensed to incorporate a work in your own work (e.g. songs in videos, or photos on websites, or what have you). |
|
I mean yeah, but it's all just semantics in the end, isn't it? The art (or whatever else) may have been made for you, but it doesn't matter- de facto, it's in the public realm. I'm over here, enjoying the thing, even if some database somewhere says you own it.
As for the license keys idea, is that such a big problem? Do people actively go around stealing license keys from other people? Willingly making copies for your friends and colleagues, sure, but that's no different to giving your friends and colleagues the private key tied to the token, which presumably would be possible if you create a new one per transaction.