|
|
|
|
|
|
by berberous
1635 days ago
|
|
|
I think this is a problem that’s easier to solve than you think. Let’s say an artist creates a minting process, which contains a click through contract granting you legal rights to the image purchased, the right to make derivatives, etc., which rights transfer always to the holder of the NFT. You now have a legal contract granting the NFT holder all IP license rights to that image. If there are 300 intermediate secondary transactions, and then I buy the NFT, make a derivative to exploit commercially, and get sued, my defense in court is simple: (1) here’s the governing IP license terms and (2) I own the NFT which is easily proved on chain. That IP license, by the way, could even be embedded on chain. I can think of lots of examples like the above, where you can leverage some offchain system (like an IP license) with an on chain one, so that you have real world rights to an item but also benefit from easy and auditable transferability. Again, just because NFTs do not solve all problems (eg you still need an IP license) does not mean that combining the two is not a real and useful improvement. |
|
|
Totally agree. I think that's where the divide lies with tech savvy people and why HN tends to be anti-crypto. It is indeed a useful piece of a stack for solving a problem, but honestly it's a pretty minor piece. A majority of the cost and attention that goes into IP is enforcement, not contract tracing. It's definitely a part of the problem, especially for smaller players, but it's not the whole pie that the less tech savvy seem to think it is.