Neither the content nor the ownership is protected by the NFT. The NFT has literally no connection to the content at all, except that someone said, "Hey, buy this and you own the 'original'!" Except in all things digital, "original" means absolutely nothing.
There's a guy who has been selling property on the moon[1]. This is exactly the same thing.
It doesn't have connection to the content, unless it's declared that it does.
All intellectual property law works this way already. The copy you have does not have any bearing on the copy someone else has, but we created laws that link it back: you don't "own" the copy you have, and using it in certain ways is made illegal.
NFTs as they are now, without any legal protection, are still innocent, but they are bought because people want to "own" something. Since NFTs don't actually provide technological means to implement that "ownership", the next logical step is to declare it by law: "owning" an NFT gives "ownership" of the content. I hope it never comes to this.
People are attempting to create a new world so scary and different to what you know, that it seems insane and completely off base. But we know what we're doing. We know this is leading to the future of a world where artists and fans can take back and redefine ownership.
It doesn't matter what you think ownership is. We're redefining it. :)
I know what an NFT does. It doesn't even give you ownership on anything other than a blockchain print. To me, the logical conclusion of this is copyright protection, where, say, an eventual platform only plays content where the player can only be verified as the owner.
It’s to much of a hypothetical but in general it would be the same as being the registered owner of a domain name and selling/leasing it direct to someone.
In other words if I own abc.eth and abc.com and sell them both to you directly but I keep the abc.eth NFT and keep abc.com, then you could still bring me to court to enforce our agreement
