[forevergreenyon]

call me old school, but it doesn't make sense to me that people get to live off the work done once, then repeated (recreated or reproduced by technology) while the 'creator'

in practice whomever owns the 'licenses' continues to collect payment for what the technology does (namely: machine-based repetition/reproduction)

I guess this is the way NFTs can make real sense: when whomever owns the NFT receives auto-blockchain royalty payments for the underlying asset (if/when the blockchain system gets political support)

[Gigachad]

Blockchain will literally never be used for this. There are such trivial fundamental issues. Imagine for example, the rights owner has their computer hacked or stolen and their NFTs are stolen. Legally, they are still the rights owner as they never agreed to transfer them. So now you are left to either ignore the blockchain record or to do the insane option of treating a thief as the rights owner.

There are seemingly no advantages to using NFTs for copyright.

[skripp]

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. The creator shouldn't be the owner of the work, the owner of the work should? That's EXACTLY how the world works and has worked for longer than you have lived.

You can buy a piece of art from someone and get all the royalities if you aren't creative but have money.

[Kaotique]

You can buy and sell royalty rights. Artists have sold all their rights for huge sums of quick money while the buyers hopes to earn it back over time.

[dmitriid]

> it doesn't make sense to me that people get to live off the work done once, then repeated

> whomever owns the NFT receives auto-blockchain royalty payments for the underlying asset

It doesn't make sense for someone to do work once, then get money all the time that's why you want to automate the process of doing the work once and then getting the money all the time in perpetuity