|
|
|
|
|
|
by scotchmi_st
1900 days ago
|
|
|
> That is: it's proof that the work is "for" 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. |
|
|
That would also give said friends and colleagues the ability to sell your license on the cheap.
Which is what I'm getting at: an NFT-like licensing system would make it possible to formally transfer the rights conferred by that license to someone else, without the original vendor needing to be in the loop. And further, it basically replaces the notion of product registration, since that registration is built into the license: whoever owns the token for that license is automatically the registered user.
And on that note:
> Do people actively go around stealing license keys from other people?
Yes, all the time. A large chunk of the market for Windows product keys in particular comes from people "stealing" them; it's a big reason why sharing photos of product key stickers on computers is typically a bad idea.
An NFT-ish license system would eliminate this sort of product key swiping and actually legitimize product key resale/transfer, so it's a win-win-win as far as the original vendor, resellers, and buyers/users are concerned. Pirates suffer a bit, though, since it wouldn't be enough to just generate a key from scratch anymore (but that's what cracks are for, yaharrr).