There is nothing official about NFTs, and since they can be traded they aren't a donation log either. When I watch a youtube video they often display donors, that is official. If the artist himself posts about donors, then that is official. If the artist posts "these NFTs are official", then why couldn't the artist just post "these people donated" instead? It is the same thing, it is the same level of authority, the NFT itself doesn't make anything more valid or official or less likely to get corrupted or forgotten.
Why would you trade support for an artist? Do you really think that people want to trade support for an artist? Like "I don't really want to get credit for this artist any longer, so now I sell it for profit!"? How does that make sense? And then the next guy who paid me for it, why didn't he just support the artist directly instead of giving me a cut? It is all just stupid.
> That's not machine readable and it needs action from the original artist.
That is the whole point, I donate to the artist and the artist shows me gratitude by performing an action for me, like including my name in his videos!
People buy funny hats to use them in games. Currently, the scope of NFTs is quite similar to that. That doesn't mean that we won't see better uses of them in the future.
> That is the whole point, I donate to the artist and the artist shows me gratitude by performing an action for me, like including my name in his videos!
If that's what you want that's fine. But there are artists that don't do videos and some people want other kinds of rewards.
Also imagine if e.g. Twitter would implement support for profile pics with NFTs. Then as an owner of a NFT you'd have something unique to display.
Does an NFT provide a mechanism for enforcement of ownership? If not, how is it better than copyright law? Under copyright law, I immediately own a work of art I create (in your example, a Twitter profile pic I created) and have the right to decide who can display copies of my art. The issue isn’t proving ownership, the issue is copyright enforcement (I may not be able to afford the cost of defending my copyright claim in court).
NFTs don't solve anything on the copyright enforcement level. How could they? Your printer doesn't enforce copyright either when you print a document or an image you aren't allowed to print.
Although I don't think there is any problem in doing a NFT like an ebook or a movie that is encrypted and the decryption key would be transferred to the wallet of the buyer when you sell or resell the NFT.
But that's not how NFTs are used currently. Right now it's just "I bought this" (with not many rights being actually bought).
What NFTs allow are open markets for these NFTs. Imagine the million dollar homepage redone with NFTs. Every pixel would be a single NFT. The homepage could automatically be generated from the public data and more importantly, the buyers of the pixels could try to buy more pixels on the open market after all pixels have been sold without the original artist/seller being involved.
Or gaming assets. DLCs today can only be bought from the game developer. There's no secondary market (or at least not a legal one). Why? Because the game developer doesn't get a cut from resold DLCs. With NFTs this could change. The game developer gets a cut on every resell and even more important, you wouldn't be confined to the game developers shop system but could sell the DLCs on any shop that is compatible with the NFT standards.
> NFT can be exchanged without the original artist doing anything and the artist can still get a provision from that.
Which only goes to prove that NFTs don't provide ownership. The doctrine of first sale limits the power of IP by giving consumers ownership. This mechanism eliminates the doctrine of first sale, giving even more power to IP holders and destroying the concept of ownership.
