[amingilani]

Why not? I see music rights as a great use-case for NFTs. The owner of the NFT unambiguously has those rights—however you may define them e.g. exclusive usage rights and sub-licensing rights—and you can trade it like any other good on any exchange.

Edit: Added an example for the rights.

[henearkr]

If you want to authentify an artistic piece, you can just sign it with a private asymmetric key.

NFT is just built on the artificial market for rarity and currencies made of pure energy use... useless.

[amingilani]

I just want to point out that the use-case that I was talking about was around music-rights, the one you're discussing is art-works :) but that said,

> If you want to authentify an artistic piece, you can just sign it with a private asymmetric key.

Isn't this exactly what NFT-artwork is though? The difference is that the signature is now in a publicly accessible space, like the ethereum blockchain rather than an email. And you now have the option of selling that artwork forward because, unlike an emailed and signed piece of art, there is only a single NFT.

> NFT is just built on the artificial market for rarity and currencies made of pure energy use... useless.

Every time I've tried to address comments like these, the conversation is less-than-constructive. I'm not sure if it's the backfire effect coming into play, or if there's something wrong with the way I'm presenting my information. Regardless, despite my best efforts it ends the other person saying things like "beanie babies", "cult", or "I don't care", and so I've just stopped trying.

[henearkr]

You don't need the blockchain to have a public key.

Https certificates and PGP signatures are some examples perfectly fine without requiring the whole world to make bazillions of hash calculations on your block.

[detaro]

Which doesn't really address their point about uniqueness/transferability.

[henearkr]

We're speaking about digital work...

One aim of digitalization is to get data that is perfectly transferable and copiable.

Now if you want to artificially and needlessly make the copying cost some megajoules of energy, you will undergo the anger of people with a common sense an ecological sensitivity.

The whole concept of paying to get copies of music/art/whatever is broken, and to ”fix“ it we are bending the very laws of nature. Until recently it was still quite harmless, even the DRM you can live with, but now you need to prove you performed the combustion of tons of CO2 to become owner of a digital copy? To keep enforcing the unenforceable we are committing planet-scale suicide.

No, the real way to go, is the one of Patreon etc, where you pay to help succeed artistic endeavours.

[henearkr]

To more specifically address the problem of ownership, as it is based on "declared ownership" anyway, with no real way to prevent non-owner to use the artwork (except by seeing that it is not theirs and punishing them, but then you don't need sophisticated devices for that), just embed the owner name in a copy signed (e.g. with a public RSA key) by the author, and that's it.

For transferablity, you can use the public key of a marketplace instead of the author's public key, so that the marketplace can take back the artwork (and reimburse you) and sell it again to somebody else with their new name embedded instead.

See? I can do all of that just with asymmetric ciphers.