[lostcolony]

If NFTs get the economics right, then there is literally no need for any sort of IP law when it comes to digital assets. After all, the profitable thing is proof of ownership, not the good.

And yet, no one is paying (to grab a software company out of a hat) Oracle for the Oracle "name". They're paying for the software. The closest we have is paying for "proof of authenticity", because that belied a level of quality, but if we can trivially make a perfect copy, even that loses all merit.

[Jtsummers]

What can you do with the proof of ownership of a digital asset if everyone else can copy it and ignore that proof of ownership? It's like starting with DRM and saying, "Oh yeah, we don't encrypt it, we just trust you not to violate our terms. Now pay up."

[nlarew]

What would Taylor Swift do right now? I can rip all of her audio off of Spotify and use it in my movie without her permission even though she owns the music.

She would try to stop me - maybe send a cease and desist, sue, or otherwise seek remuneration for unauthorized use of her work.

Her proof of ownership is a signed contract with her recording company and any US copyright filings.

Your proof of ownership is an unambiguous cryptographic scheme (NFT), which you could use to secure a US copyright.