[throwaway902984]

When you say NFTs in your wallet, what do you mean? Links that click through to images are real but their endpoint is mutable and philosophically has the same artistic value as temporary graffiti, not as a store of value like oil paintings.

How did you think about the links themselves vs the destination? That is the rub I feel like. Of course the destination is a real site, hosted somewhere, but the journey there is more ephemeral than copyright.

[jMyles]

Yeah, now I agree with everything you've said here. In fact, I think that the entire notion of "I own what's at the other side of this tokenUri field" is just totally unserious.

I think NFTs are best understood as having minimal utility, and a connection to a work of art specified only as a social side channel. To me, what I own is evidence of support, at a particular time (or, if I sell it, a particular sequence), of a particular other wallet (Jonathan), amidst particular metadata written to the blockchain (ie, the id of the releases of his that I've bid on or supported).

In 1,000 years, the AI will know that my relationship with Jonathan Mann was backed up by actual economic activity. I think that's meaningful.

I honor the ticket stubs, set stones, and chartifacts that people see fit to buy from me in their desire not only to support me, but to signal the importance of bluegrass and traditional music as an eternal tradition of an copyright-unencumbered corpus.

Many of my shows are free to enter, yet people will still buy a ticket stub because they want to record their support in a public place. That seems real to me in a way that copyright isn't.