| > YouTube routinely deals with DMCA notices that are bogus, and it’s difficult for them to sort out whether someone is a legitimate rights holder or not. This is very true, but I don't see how NFTs are a good solution to this. The problem you're getting at is "determining if someone has permission from a copyright holder in a given work is hard" which is a true problem. NFTs do not currently give you copyright over a work, so they don't currently solve it. In theory, we could have a copyright token, but that also can't work trivially. Why? Because copyright can, and of often is, written with complex conditions. Let's say I'm a podcast, and I email a songwriter and ask them if I can use one of their pieces of music on my podcast, and then they ask what the podcast and content is, and then finally say "Yes, you have permission to use it for free on that specific episode you talked about" or "you can use the first 20 seconds of it" or such. How does that get captured as an NFT, where it's okay use it on a youtube video which is the audio of my podcast episode I got rights for, but it would be infringing to use it on a different video? How would fair use be checked? Would lawyers act as oracles in any "NFT token use disputes"? Isn't that already the state of the art? I guess in my head, "legal use of copyright" requires checking fair use, and requires checking arbitrarily complex legal conditions, so I don't see how you can make an "nft" of this without having a lawyer review or write every token... which scales just as well as having one lawyer at youtube hq watching every video. For another fun challenge in copyright, how might your idea model copyleft / gpl / the linux kernel copyright issues, where someone uses GPL software (a conditional copyright license, conditioned on releasing their source code), but did not give the source code out after making changes and distributing binaries? |