[shakna]

Verifying ownership is kinda useless when the distributor no longer distributes, though.

You can prove you own a copy. Congrats. So can everyone else with a receipt. However, that doesn't somehow coerce Sony into continuing to provide access.

[grumbel]

Libraries exist. You don't need Sony when you can proof ownership. Getting a hold of a movie has never been the problem, redistributing it legally is and NFTs make that possible, even without Sony's approval.

[shakna]

This is part of why distribution platforms all have their own cut. You don't own a copy of the movie. You own a copy of a _specific_ movie that was carried by Sony's streaming service and not a library.

If the distributor isn't distributing, then there's no legal way to get it. And NFTs don't contain the item purchased. It changes exactly nothing about the situation.

[grumbel]

> If the distributor isn't distributing, then there's no legal way to get it.

Many countries already require that a copy of every book published has to be send to the national library:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit

Just extend that to digital media.

> It changes exactly nothing about the situation.

NFT provide you with a transferable proof of ownership. That's a pretty ginormous piece of the puzzle that is missing right now when it comes to digital content. How to download a copy is quite a trivial problem by comparison.

[klez]

Yes but what about NFT specifically could not be solved by any other form of electronic (or analog, for that matter) receipt?

[jlokier]

Unlike a normal receipt, a well built NFT is virtually unforgeable and uncloneable, even by the receipt-issuing entity.

This changes the trust model significantly, so that different legal principles can be applied. So the download access from the "legally acceptable archive for proven owners" could be automatic, fast and secure, without depending on a single company (eg Visa or Sony) to uphold their side in perpetuity, and allowing multiple download services to be legally in the clear, because they are enforcing contractually agreed checks.

No human in the loop to check your receipt (which costs), cheap automatic fast and secure service, no single company database that has to be trusted to authorise your access once you have obtained the receipt, and (if the rules are so designed) no further access once you have settled a transfer to another person.

For technical reasons that automation can distributed so that it is highly available, decentralised so that download and effective ownership is not managed by one company that might backpedal. And because of the changed legal relationship (ie no court would consider it piracy if legit terms are agreed in the contract) it could, potentially, be legally safe to operate high quality service.

There would still be risk of fraud (you transfer your receipt because someone tricked you), and some people will be disappointed m that DRM would be technically possible even when decntralised (the guaranteed access might be access to something you can stream but not save).

I am not particularly a crypto enthusiast (despite working in the field, currently zk-EVM if anyone's interested) but I think this idea of NFT-guaranteed access to data which is authorised by conventional consumer contracts has a lot going for it. It would solve the Sony problem.

[shakna]

> It would solve the Sony problem.

It solves what part of Sony saying they are aware that people have bought things, but that they will no longer distribute those things?

There is no archive where you get to download the things. Sony is the sole distributor of the purchase. They've said they will no longer provide access. Fin. End of story.

[grumbel]

NFTs are transferable and service-independent. Meaning you can trade used digital media and they will continue working even when Sony goes out of business, just like physical media would. Another big advantage is that they are generic, they are just abstract "ownership", you can use them for books, games, monkey pictures or concert tickets. Any normal commercial alternative would almost certainly be locked to a specific type of media and to a set of companies, along with strict rules to follow, if they allow any outsiders to participate at all. NFTs are an open system where everybody can build something with them.

That said, this is all very theoretical. Blockchain needs to get fast and cheap before any of this makes sense.

[boffinAudio]

Where do you stash your receipts? Somewhere you'll find them in two years time when challenged to prove you paid for something? Think that solution scales through the entirety of society?

Sony could make a blockchain/NFT solution to their problem and everyone would be happy - it'd be future-proof, licenses would be in-perpetuity, and nobody would have to pay much for the effort. Heck, it'd even give pirates a way to become legitimate service providers.

Sony et al., are not doing this, because of antiquated business ideas that serve more as dark patterns than anything else.

[klez]

> Think that solution scales through the entirety of society?

It does when I need to get a repair for something I bought that is still under warranty.

EDIT:

Also: does keeping a cryptographic key safe scale through the entirety of society?

[boffinAudio]

>It does when I need to get a repair for something I bought that is still under warranty.

This simply doesn't scale through the entirety of society, because its only relevant to you and your relationship with the content provider.

If I'm being challenged on the ownership of movies on my personal laptop - having a publicly accessible register of my purchase of those movies is entirely more useful to me - and society at large - than the "private receipts stashed in a drawer" model you propose is superior to NFT's.

>Also: does keeping a cryptographic key safe scale through the entirety of society?

Yes. I can depend on it if I need to defend myself against claims of piracy and theft of intellectual property, no matter where I am in the world.. Having a globally-accessible register of my licenses is quite a bit more useful than if those receipts are stashed in a paper file somewhere remote.

[klez]

> the "private receipts stashed in a drawer" model you propose is superior to NFT's.

I've never said it's "superior". I simply mean it's good enough. I should probably have been more clear on that.

Also:

> This [physical/digital receipt] simply doesn't scale through the entirety of society, because its only relevant to you and your relationship with the content provider.

But then

> I can depend on it [NFT/public ledger] if I need to defend myself against claims of piracy and theft of intellectual property, no matter where I am in the world

Sorry but I find this contradictory. Can you please explain why the receipt is only relevant me and the content provider but a public ledger isn't? You mean "relevant" as in "there are more actors that can give a 'truth value' to the transaction"?

[boffinAudio]

The paper receipt is in your drawer somewhere, you cannot provide it when you're crossing a border and need to convince the security thug that you do in fact own all those movies.

An NFT, on the other hand, can be looked up by anyone, anywhere.

I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this. The NFT receipt solves a lot of problems that a paper receipt simply makes worse.

[klez]

There's nothing hard to understand. I'm simply wondering whether these use cases ("crossing a border and need to convince the security thug that you do in fact own all those movies") are really so pressing AND don't depend on other problems being solved first.