[kravens_last]

This is true, but the flaw in your reasoning, and in the raison d'etre of NFT's in general, is that social consensus is the be all, end all.

There isn't really the problem of acquiring a 100% perfect copy of an asset in the real world. You can approximate an item, but you can't literally get the same exact thing down to the molecular composition. On the internet, this is absolutely possible (replace molecules with bytecode), and is I'd argue, one of the defining features of it.

The true secret sauce behind modern property rights is the enforcement through legal authority. In the event of a dispute, courts have potentially a few hundred years' worth of precedence. Following that, there are proven legal procedures to remove a person from unlawful possession of another's property, which hold penalties ranging from monetary fines to loss of freedom.

And the driving force behind that is social consensus, but on a case by case basis. There will be no such thing with NFT's. It's simply impossible to build it in.

[miracle2k]

The NFT is the property. Social consensus is why people want to own it. The blockchain enables the creation of an ownable digital record. Our legal system continue to function and will still arrest you if you steal an NFT.

[ben_w]

Most people don’t understands existing IP laws (see what results you get when searching YouTube for “no copyright intended”); adding a new one isn’t likely to improve the situation, so I don’t accept that there is (nor that there is likely to be) a real social consensus in favour of NFTs.