Nfts, digital tokens, already exist. Their use, in the protection of copyright, is called drm. “Nfts” bring nothing new to the table of digital rights or copyright… And a whole host of stupidity.
Again, all of this already existed and will continue to exist with or without blockchain. There is very little novel in the implementation details of the tokens. The people who got the idea for "nft"s didn’t come up with a new idea. This isn’t some new math. The only portion of NFTs that is new is the cooperative signing… Which again, isn’t a new concept either.
Right now, everything you described… Literally all of it… Ubisoft implements for their launcher and enforce with their drm solution.
It’s frustrating trying to explain the same thing over and over again…
The tokens are how drm works. The process of DRM is token validation and enforcement of intellectual property rights granted by tokens.
I don’t know how else to explain it. It feels like I am back at my original post. I don’t know if you understand any better or if you still have misconceptions about what NFTs are or what DRM is or if you still think there is some magic in NFTs.
Ehhh they’re technically wrong. You don’t own the media with physical formats either. There’s just nothing they can do about it if they want it out of your home.
Often, licence agreements stipulate that they are not transferable and thus you have contractually agreed not to resell them. To what extent this is enforceable is… contentious. Different courts have struggled with the topic and have ruled both directions on the issue.
Copyright law as written was not designed for immaterial goods in any way, and the DMCA has done little to improve that. So effectively the judicial branch is in limbo. Corporate America is content to leave the confusion as is. They can just adopt an interpretation of the law that is maximally beneficial to them, and consumers generally don’t have the resources to challenge that interpretation.
So, why can’t I buy and sell license?
In a way, NFTs were supposed to solve this.
deleted by creator
Nfts, digital tokens, already exist. Their use, in the protection of copyright, is called drm. “Nfts” bring nothing new to the table of digital rights or copyright… And a whole host of stupidity.
deleted by creator
Again, all of this already existed and will continue to exist with or without blockchain. There is very little novel in the implementation details of the tokens. The people who got the idea for "nft"s didn’t come up with a new idea. This isn’t some new math. The only portion of NFTs that is new is the cooperative signing… Which again, isn’t a new concept either.
Right now, everything you described… Literally all of it… Ubisoft implements for their launcher and enforce with their drm solution.
deleted by creator
Sorry. I apologize.
It’s frustrating trying to explain the same thing over and over again…
The tokens are how drm works. The process of DRM is token validation and enforcement of intellectual property rights granted by tokens.
I don’t know how else to explain it. It feels like I am back at my original post. I don’t know if you understand any better or if you still have misconceptions about what NFTs are or what DRM is or if you still think there is some magic in NFTs.
deleted by creator
Ehhh they’re technically wrong. You don’t own the media with physical formats either. There’s just nothing they can do about it if they want it out of your home.
I believe there was a recent EU ruling that mandated that this must be allowed.
I’m not sure of the details, however.
You literally can. Check out kinguin
Often, licence agreements stipulate that they are not transferable and thus you have contractually agreed not to resell them. To what extent this is enforceable is… contentious. Different courts have struggled with the topic and have ruled both directions on the issue.
Copyright law as written was not designed for immaterial goods in any way, and the DMCA has done little to improve that. So effectively the judicial branch is in limbo. Corporate America is content to leave the confusion as is. They can just adopt an interpretation of the law that is maximally beneficial to them, and consumers generally don’t have the resources to challenge that interpretation.