So the alleged connection is a hyperlink (or something to the same effect). And in the case of a physical object, it could be GPS coordinates. Right... therefore the only tie between the NFT and the object it's allegedly tied to is that the NFT contains directions to find the object... but these directions can also be found elsewhere for free. I think it's clear that the only way NFTs can be sold for money is by misrepresenting what NFTs are. Selling NFTs under the pretence that they're more than just directions is dishonest at the very least, if not downright fraud.
A token could be boiled down to a secured record in a distributed ledger ("X wallet owns Y token"). Most artists & collectors in the space understand this; but the mainstream media often mischaracterizes it as "buying JPGs."
Nobody who purchases a CryptoPunk today would expect to receive a JPG or media file of a pixelated avatar in return for their purchase. Rather, they would expect to receive ownership over the token (i.e. record in a distributed ledger). In the case of CryptoPunks, there is not even any "hyperlink" in the NFT – it is just an integer from 0 to 9999, stored within the state of the CryptoPunks contract.[1]
Do they hold ownership over the media file, or pixel artwork? No. Do they hold ownership over a digital token that (according to the project's creator, and according to social consensus) represents part of the CryptoPunks art project? Yes.
> Do they hold ownership over a digital token that (according to the project's creator, and according to social consensus) represents part of the CryptoPunks art project? Yes.
The social consensus says what? Obviously the NFT promoters want the public to believe that the NFT is part of an art collection, and this is why they use this ambiguous language that is intended to create the false impression that the NFT and the piece of art are the same thing or at least are closely connected with one another, and indeed the uneducated public will tend to believe that, but this a belief that is founded upon a lie. Anyone who actually knows what an NFT is is very unlikely to agree that these NFTs are part of an art project or have an artistic intent.
I'm not sure how my language is ambiguous. It's very clear to those participating that buying an NFT does not give you ownership over the intellectual property of the artwork, or even ownership over the image itself, hence the many "Right click Save As" memes[1].
> Anyone who actually knows what an NFT is is very unlikely to agree that these NFTs are part of an art project or have an artistic intent.
This is pretty presumptuous, and also wrong. One such counter-example is ZKM, which began acquiring NFTs in 2018.[2]
It's an ambiguous language, for example, when you say that the NFT "represents part of the CryptoPunks art project". Is it true? Well, maybe. A bread crumb can represent the starship Enterprise, but it would be absurd to describe it in this way. Or when ZKM describes NFTs as "digitally certified images" and also as "digital works" that are "transformed into unique pieces" (from your own link). In this is case, not so much ambiguous, but directly deceiving.
