This in my opinion is one of the valid use cases of a blockchain/NFTs: they provide provable ownership of digital goods. This means that if implemented, in the future we could actually own games music movies ebooks etc. The only remaining step would be a decentralized torrent-like system that allows the users to download the licensed content that they own via their nft.
I mean, I can actually own a bunch of stuff as long as it doesn’t have some sort of proprietary DRM bullshit attached to it.
The problem isn’t that there’s no way to obtain media in a non-bullshit way. The problem is that distributors don’t want to provide media in a non-bullshit way.
If you can’t modify it, sell it or know what the game software is even doing then calling that “ownership” would be rather lacking. I mean in terms of traditional ownership, not the modern definition: “page 69 of the EULA defines “purchasing” (the software) as a limited, non-transferable lease which can stop working at any time due to dependency on a proprietary server code we will never share I fucked your mom”.
But if the game has to call home every time it starts and there is no server your game won’t work. StarCraft can be played offline, as it was created, but you need to connect to play because Blizzard.
You don’t need to, you can play offline. You just need to call home every 30 days to keep the remastered graphics since the base game is free to play now
One big “advantage” (for the companies) of NFTs is that the emitter can take a commission or fee every time the NFT is sold. This can kind of alleviate their fears of people buying from each other instead of buying a new copy. I think that’s a fair middle ground for owning a fully digital copy, between physical copy that companies don’t want and digital copy that consumers don’t want.
Without knowing why people change their wallets, it’s hard to nail down a solution. But, perhaps a smart contract wallet whose access is controlled by an underlying wallet that can be swapped out may help.
In any case, all transfers or smart contract execution attracts a fee. Even sending money between wallets.
Well I know all transactions have fees, I meant a fee charged as a commission to transfer it that goes to the developer.
Wallets get compromised, you might upgrade to a multi sig wallet or make a new shamirs secret sharing wallet. You might want to get more privacy after leaking your identity. All sorts of reasons to change it. Having to pay an extra 4% resale fee or whatever it is doing that wouldn’t be acceptable.
How would an NFT help in any way? We’re not lacking the means to prove you bought the game. We’re lacking companies willing to sell you games and laws that prevent companies from saying “buy” when they mean “rent”. If we got to a place where torrenting software you’ve bought in the past is legal, we don’t need NFTs to accomplish it…
This in my opinion is one of the valid use cases of a blockchain/NFTs: they provide provable ownership of digital goods. This means that if implemented, in the future we could actually own games music movies ebooks etc. The only remaining step would be a decentralized torrent-like system that allows the users to download the licensed content that they own via their nft.
How would that support “First Sale Doctrine”?
I mean, I can actually own a bunch of stuff as long as it doesn’t have some sort of proprietary DRM bullshit attached to it.
The problem isn’t that there’s no way to obtain media in a non-bullshit way. The problem is that distributors don’t want to provide media in a non-bullshit way.
Sure, you can still own digital media, but you can’t sell or trade it like you can with a physical copy.
Meh. If life weren’t so focused on material gains and losses, I wouldn’t need to.
It would also mean potential losses for the distributors, as people are (supposedly) less likely to buy directly for them.
So, again, the problem isn’t the media, it’s the distributors.
If you can’t modify it, sell it or know what the game software is even doing then calling that “ownership” would be rather lacking. I mean in terms of traditional ownership, not the modern definition: “page 69 of the EULA defines “purchasing” (the software) as a limited, non-transferable lease which can stop working at any time due to dependency on a proprietary server code we will never share I fucked your mom”.
You could sell the NFT and lose access to the game just like a disc
You wouldn’t be able to modify it as the nft would just allow you to download (edit and run) the game.
Edit: But allowing people to freely resale their digital copies would be a big win for people. No gatekeepers just like with discs
As long as the network exists
If it’s a networked game, but there’s no reason a offline game shouldn’t work other than incompetence.
Also since the NFT is the DRM the game could be available for download outside of the publishers purview, such as a public torrent site.
But if the game has to call home every time it starts and there is no server your game won’t work. StarCraft can be played offline, as it was created, but you need to connect to play because Blizzard.
You don’t need to, you can play offline. You just need to call home every 30 days to keep the remastered graphics since the base game is free to play now
Every 30 days but you have to call home or have a degraded experience.
Yeah, but at least it’s not always online
One big “advantage” (for the companies) of NFTs is that the emitter can take a commission or fee every time the NFT is sold. This can kind of alleviate their fears of people buying from each other instead of buying a new copy. I think that’s a fair middle ground for owning a fully digital copy, between physical copy that companies don’t want and digital copy that consumers don’t want.
How can they force that and not also force a fee to move it to a different wallet you own?
People change wallets all the time and putting a fee on that would be inexcusable
Without knowing why people change their wallets, it’s hard to nail down a solution. But, perhaps a smart contract wallet whose access is controlled by an underlying wallet that can be swapped out may help. In any case, all transfers or smart contract execution attracts a fee. Even sending money between wallets.
Well I know all transactions have fees, I meant a fee charged as a commission to transfer it that goes to the developer.
Wallets get compromised, you might upgrade to a multi sig wallet or make a new shamirs secret sharing wallet. You might want to get more privacy after leaking your identity. All sorts of reasons to change it. Having to pay an extra 4% resale fee or whatever it is doing that wouldn’t be acceptable.
How would an NFT help in any way? We’re not lacking the means to prove you bought the game. We’re lacking companies willing to sell you games and laws that prevent companies from saying “buy” when they mean “rent”. If we got to a place where torrenting software you’ve bought in the past is legal, we don’t need NFTs to accomplish it…