"NFTs need standard, legally enforceable licenses. In the same way open source and creative commons are underpinned by the law, NFT-based licences should be underpinned by a legal foundation. Developing and issuing standard licenses for NFTs shouldn’t be particularly difficult and both platforms like OpenSea and artist groups should collaborate to release these licenses as soon as possible."
NFTs--as a technology--have absolutely nothing to do with what the author is proposing. What's really proposed here is to replace intellectual property law--which, to be sure, has flaws, but which is the result of a public, democratic process--with private contracts and licensing.
Nevermind that creating legally enforceable licenses which transfer with the change in ownership of an NFT is quite probably (legally) difficult; were it to be done, we would have successfully replaced an area of public law with private contracts in which--as with private arbitration agreements supplanting public courts--the powerful and the lawyered win out.
"Web3.0" is so much bullshit, of course, but this is one of the more egregious cases of masking a lawyer-heavy play to empower the already empowered as "revolutionary technology".
But... thinking further about it, it doesn't even hold much.
NFTs may only be enforceable because of public law which lays out the playground for IP contracts and licenses (the same way the GPL/copyleft needs copyright law to be operational).
Is it though? It takes the capability of adversarial action for copyright to work. There is no such mechanism on Web3. If you copy no one is stopping you.
"NFTs need standard, legally enforceable licenses. In the same way open source and creative commons are underpinned by the law, NFT-based licences should be underpinned by a legal foundation. Developing and issuing standard licenses for NFTs shouldn’t be particularly difficult and both platforms like OpenSea and artist groups should collaborate to release these licenses as soon as possible."
NFTs--as a technology--have absolutely nothing to do with what the author is proposing. What's really proposed here is to replace intellectual property law--which, to be sure, has flaws, but which is the result of a public, democratic process--with private contracts and licensing.
Nevermind that creating legally enforceable licenses which transfer with the change in ownership of an NFT is quite probably (legally) difficult; were it to be done, we would have successfully replaced an area of public law with private contracts in which--as with private arbitration agreements supplanting public courts--the powerful and the lawyered win out.
"Web3.0" is so much bullshit, of course, but this is one of the more egregious cases of masking a lawyer-heavy play to empower the already empowered as "revolutionary technology".