Anyone can still mint a copy with different metadata on a different contract.
That would not be an exact copy, because the data is different. Then traditional copyright laws take over.
the blockchain itself has no legal jurisdiction. It doesn’t have legal authority, and documents stored this way are not inherently compliant with local laws, so they’re unenforceable unless recognized by a traditional legal system.
Agreed. The NFT and legal documentation has to be constructed in such a way as to pass local laws. Having a bill of sale on-chain rather than on-paper isn’t that big a difference.
Just transferring an NFT doesn’t guarantee that legal ownership has changed.
But it is possible to create a legal structure that does create a legal bill of sale just by transferring an NFT.
As far as I can tell it isn’t possible to create a legal structure on a blockchain. Technical limitations inherent in blockchain prevent this from making it possible.
Lets say I mint an NFT of Mickey Mouse. I don’t own that image since it is protected by copyright. First created doesn’t mean ownership or authenticity. To be legally compliant, there would have to be some central authority to take down the offending IP on another contract, but blockchain doesn’t offer an ability to do this.
Or lets say my house deed was on the blockchain and a hacker stole my secret pass phrase and took my deed. He doesn’t have legal authority over my house.
Sure we can mitigate these issues with a central authority which can roll-back transactions on the blockchain, but if we are using a central authority then there isn’t any usefulness of blockchain over a traditional database.
Lets say I mint an NFT of Mickey Mouse. I don’t own that image since it is protected by copyright.
Not any more. So let’s choose Minnie Mouse instead.
First created doesn’t mean ownership or authenticity.
Agreed
To be legally compliant, there would have to be some central authority to take down the offending IP on another contract, but blockchain doesn’t offer an ability to do this.
Incorrect. An NFT of Minnie Mouse would not be legal, but that doesn’t make other NFTs of other art illegal.
Or lets say my house deed was on the blockchain and a hacker stole my secret pass phrase and took my deed. He doesn’t have legal authority over my house.
Agreed. Stealing the crypto key is as exactly as illegal as stealing a physical key and claiming ownership.
Sure we can mitigate these issues with a central authority which can roll-back transactions on the blockchain
No need to roll back. The legal contract can be made to point to a different nft.
but if we are using a central authority then there isn’t any usefulness of blockchain over a traditional database.
In this case the blockchain removes friction. Real world enforcement of laws is centralised because society demands it.
Right, I agree that not all NFTs are illegal just because one might infringe IP. But the broader issue is enforcement, blockchains, by design, don’t offer mechanisms to remove or suppress infringing or malicious content.
And with legal documents like deeds, I get that stealing a key is like stealing a physical one. But the difference is that if someone steals my house key, I can rekey the lock. If they steal my private key, the blockchain can’t “reassign” the NFT unless a centralized authority steps in, defeating the idea of decentralized, immutable ownership.
Sure, you could update the legal system’s contract to point to a different NFT, but again, that requires a central entity with authority to override what’s on-chain. So at that point, we’re counting on some central authority to fix blockchain’s problem of not having reversibility.
So this goes back to the main question, if we need centralized enforcement and off-chain enforcement, anyway, what actual value does a blockchain add compared to an access-controlled database?
if we need centralized enforcement and off-chain enforcement, anyway, what actual value does a blockchain add compared to an access-controlled database?
Enforcement of laws and documentation of ownership are two separate functions. Blockchain does the former only if everything is digital (like money).
Let’s take licence to drive as a pure real world enforcement example. There are multiple countries so there are multiple centralised databases. Blockchain allows all those databases to be merged without needing central access control
That would not be an exact copy, because the data is different. Then traditional copyright laws take over.
Agreed. The NFT and legal documentation has to be constructed in such a way as to pass local laws. Having a bill of sale on-chain rather than on-paper isn’t that big a difference.
Just transferring an NFT doesn’t guarantee that legal ownership has changed.
But it is possible to create a legal structure that does create a legal bill of sale just by transferring an NFT.
As far as I can tell it isn’t possible to create a legal structure on a blockchain. Technical limitations inherent in blockchain prevent this from making it possible.
Sure we can mitigate these issues with a central authority which can roll-back transactions on the blockchain, but if we are using a central authority then there isn’t any usefulness of blockchain over a traditional database.
Not any more. So let’s choose Minnie Mouse instead.
Agreed
Incorrect. An NFT of Minnie Mouse would not be legal, but that doesn’t make other NFTs of other art illegal.
Agreed. Stealing the crypto key is as exactly as illegal as stealing a physical key and claiming ownership.
No need to roll back. The legal contract can be made to point to a different nft.
In this case the blockchain removes friction. Real world enforcement of laws is centralised because society demands it.
Right, I agree that not all NFTs are illegal just because one might infringe IP. But the broader issue is enforcement, blockchains, by design, don’t offer mechanisms to remove or suppress infringing or malicious content.
And with legal documents like deeds, I get that stealing a key is like stealing a physical one. But the difference is that if someone steals my house key, I can rekey the lock. If they steal my private key, the blockchain can’t “reassign” the NFT unless a centralized authority steps in, defeating the idea of decentralized, immutable ownership.
Sure, you could update the legal system’s contract to point to a different NFT, but again, that requires a central entity with authority to override what’s on-chain. So at that point, we’re counting on some central authority to fix blockchain’s problem of not having reversibility.
So this goes back to the main question, if we need centralized enforcement and off-chain enforcement, anyway, what actual value does a blockchain add compared to an access-controlled database?
Enforcement of laws and documentation of ownership are two separate functions. Blockchain does the former only if everything is digital (like money).
Let’s take licence to drive as a pure real world enforcement example. There are multiple countries so there are multiple centralised databases. Blockchain allows all those databases to be merged without needing central access control