[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.

[jlokier]

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

Yes, in the model I and others have described.

> There is no archive where you get to download the things

Currently there is not. The idea is that in future, consumer contracts may adopt terms that say if a person has a suitable kind of proof of purchase (such as an uncloneable NFT) then "the storage net" (third party services) may provide the purchased file or stream under that entitlement. Those services would be "legal" rather than "pirate" services because the contract permits them.

By itself that doesn't solve the current Sony problem: Sony doesn't offer those terms of purchase at the point of sale.

But if the technology becomes common and easy to the point of becoming a "new normal" consumer expectation, it will increase the pressure on companies who offer "purchase" and "rent" buttons to associate "purchase" with "you are purchasing the right to 'have' this item via the storage net" contractual terms. Or, if they don't, to prominently display a notice that you are not being offered a perpetual access right and it may be rescinded later without notice or refund - I could imagine that notice making its way into consumer law eventually, if its absence is found to be seriously misleading consumers without a good reason.

It's because it will become possible and well known to be able to offer perpetual access to things like movies "as if" an actual file or physical object had been transferred, even while still complying with upstream studio's licensing and region locking demands that are designed to ensure most people pay, that some companies may start to use this approach profitably, and then cultural expectations may follow so that other companies have to do the same.

In a sense, the artificial scarcity of NFTs may help bridge the tension between file producers' desire to control access to pressure most people into paying, and consumers' desire that when you've "purchased" something it behaves a bit more like a physical object in your possession.

[shakna]

So it helps, but only in an idealistic world where data centres and the siloing of data no longer exist as a concept. It's precipitated on major changes to how business and regulation works, happening. That the current competitive advantage that is ruthlessly enforced by all companies becomes regulated out of existence. Something that cannot happen in the current environment. In short - it requires naivety to think that it _might_ help in the future.

[grumbel]

The laws necessary for that "idealistic world" already exist for physical goods:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Sometimes they are even applied to the digital world, but that's rare:

https://dotesports.com/business/news/french-court-rules-valv...

The lack of enforcement for digital goods is largely the result of there being no technology to proof ownership in a digital world. Hard to force companies to adopt a thing that doesn't exist. That's exactly the hole that NFT could fill.

[shakna]

> The lack of enforcement for digital goods is largely the result of there being no technology to proof ownership in a digital world. Hard to force companies to adopt a thing that doesn't exist. That's exactly the hole that NFT could fill.

The real world actually doesn't run with needs so hard and firm. A stat dec is nothing more than a signed sheet, and can "prove" any statement in a court of law. This isn't a case of the technology lacking in proving ownership. We already have all of that, legally speaking.

The reason this idealistic world does not exist, is simply because the distributors do not wish it to. In digital distribution, you don't distribute an existing item, you copy it. Thus, first sale which transfers something, cannot be enforced. They control distribution, they prevent undue proliferation.

Proving that you own something is not the problem at hand. DRM is not integrated into all of these platforms to prove ownership of an item. They are to prevent someone else becoming the distributor.

Which means that... Coming all the way back to square one... When the distributor doesn't distribute... You can't do anything. Sony have already acknowledged that they are cutting off owners. They are aware of ownership. NFTs don't add or take from that, they serve to fill a purpose that is already filled. Owners are acknowledged. Owners access is being removed.

[grumbel]

> The reason this idealistic world does not exist, is simply because the distributors do not wish it to.

Companies can only do what the laws allows them to do, and as I already linked, laws exists to prevent companies from double-dipping when it comes to physical IP goods. Once the thing is sold, it's out of their control and people can resell it as much as they want. Apply the same principles to digital goods and the problem is solved. But to do so you need a technical framework for digital good ownership to work in a similar fashion to physical goods, which NFTs could do.

> Sony have already acknowledged that they are cutting off owners. They are aware of ownership.

It's not "ownership" when Sony has full and exclusive controller over it and can terminate it at any time for whatever reason they chose. That's clear violation of First-sale doctrine. Especially since they love to pretend that you "Buy" the things in their digital stores, without clearly labeling that it's actually a "Rent for an arbitrary and limited time".

> When the distributor doesn't distribute... You can't do anything.

Piracy exists. Companies don't have to play nice to allow any of this, the law just needs to scale back a little in protecting them.