[bonestamp2]

> The whole point of an NFT is to create artificial scarcity in a post-scarcity medium.

That's not true for art NFTs. If you don't own the rights to an image, whether it's a regular old bitmap or an art NFT, there's no difference in scarcity as an observer of that image. But, as the artist who created a digital image vs an art NFT, there's a massive difference, and THAT is the whole point of an art NFT.

[wpietri]

Nah. A post-scarcity, open-source-like solution is letting people sponsor art creation. An NFT is creating artificial scarcity: one person thinks they "own" a digital asset. And there's plenty of agita when people don't play pretend with them: https://mashable.com/article/non-fungible-tokens-nfts-right-...

[bonestamp2]

> An NFT is creating artificial scarcity: one person thinks they "own" a digital asset.

This is true for most digital images, NFT or not... one person usually does own it. In either case, there is no scarcity for observers -- anyone can look at the image as much as they want.

In both cases, people can even copy the image and it use it without the owner's permission, if that's what you're really concerned about losing. But at least the NFT makes it very clear who that owner is, for those who do seek permission or licensing (unlike your average jpeg). For anyone who believes in intellectual property, that seems like a step forward.

[wpietri]

Yes, NFTs are like other images in that respect, which makes them even more pointless. And also worse, in that the ownership is less reliable and subject to far more terms and conditions than regular ownership.

But regardless, you make my point for me. It's just as illegal to copy somebody's NFT'd JPEG as it is any other privately owned JPEG. NFTs do not "share the values of open source software", which is about making it legal for people to freely use IP, more or less the opposite of the sort of free-market fundamentalist "who believes in intellectual property".