[etothepii]

The tried and tested answer is to think about "buying" the Mona Lisa. If the Louvre offered the opportunity for someone to be called the owner of the Mona Lisa but they could never take it out of the Louvre or any way control it what would that sell for? I suspect many, many millions of dollars.

[gitfan86]

Similarly, you can give millions of dollars to a college and get a building or park named after you. You don't "own" it, you get social status out of it.

NFTs are no different than having a email from the Beanie Baby store saying that you bought the first beanie baby. If someone wants to buy that e-mail from you, then great, you made a profit.

[gaganyaan]

Yes, but you could then have a legitimate court case over the ownership, and might even win the right to control it anyways. NFTs are a scam because they offer no legal rights whatsoever.

[cr1895]

>If the Louvre offered the opportunity for someone to be called the owner of the Mona Lisa but they could never take it out of the Louvre or any way control it what would that sell for? I suspect many, many millions of dollars.

I thought that was a fairly normal thing? That is, someone buys or owns a work of art but it's left in a museum in perpetuity.

[ttyprintk]

Brought to you by Hardee’s

[smt88]

NFTs don't confer ownership of anything except a string of letters. Unless there's a legal system backing them, they're just trading cars.

Owning an NFT of a digital image doesn't mean you own it anymore than owning a LeBron James card means you own LeBron James.