Verifying ownership is kinda useless when the distributor no longer distributes, though.
You can prove you own a copy. Congrats. So can everyone else with a receipt. However, that doesn't somehow coerce Sony into continuing to provide access.
Libraries exist. You don't need Sony when you can proof ownership. Getting a hold of a movie has never been the problem, redistributing it legally is and NFTs make that possible, even without Sony's approval.
This is part of why distribution platforms all have their own cut. You don't own a copy of the movie. You own a copy of a _specific_ movie that was carried by Sony's streaming service and not a library.
If the distributor isn't distributing, then there's no legal way to get it. And NFTs don't contain the item purchased. It changes exactly nothing about the situation.
NFT provide you with a transferable proof of ownership. That's a pretty ginormous piece of the puzzle that is missing right now when it comes to digital content. How to download a copy is quite a trivial problem by comparison.
Unlike a normal receipt, a well built NFT is virtually unforgeable and uncloneable, even by the receipt-issuing entity.
This changes the trust model significantly, so that different legal principles can be applied. So the download access from the "legally acceptable archive for proven owners" could be automatic, fast and secure, without depending on a single company (eg Visa or Sony) to uphold their side in perpetuity, and allowing multiple download services to be legally in the clear, because they are enforcing contractually agreed checks.
No human in the loop to check your receipt (which costs), cheap automatic fast and secure service, no single company database that has to be trusted to authorise your access once you have obtained the receipt, and (if the rules are so designed) no further access once you have settled a transfer to another person.
For technical reasons that automation can distributed so that it is highly available, decentralised so that download and effective ownership is not managed by one company that might backpedal. And because of the changed legal relationship (ie no court would consider it piracy if legit terms are agreed in the contract) it could, potentially, be legally safe to operate high quality service.
There would still be risk of fraud (you transfer your receipt because someone tricked you), and some people will be disappointed m that DRM would be technically possible even when decntralised (the guaranteed access might be access to something you can stream but not save).
I am not particularly a crypto enthusiast (despite working in the field, currently zk-EVM if anyone's interested) but I think this idea of NFT-guaranteed access to data which is authorised by conventional consumer contracts has a lot going for it. It would solve the Sony problem.
It solves what part of Sony saying they are aware that people have bought things, but that they will no longer distribute those things?
There is no archive where you get to download the things. Sony is the sole distributor of the purchase. They've said they will no longer provide access. Fin. End of story.
> It solves what part of Sony saying they are aware that people have bought things, but that they will no longer distribute those things?
Yes, in the model I and others have described.
> There is no archive where you get to download the things
Currently there is not. The idea is that in future, consumer contracts may adopt terms that say if a person has a suitable kind of proof of purchase (such as an uncloneable NFT) then "the storage net" (third party services) may provide the purchased file or stream under that entitlement. Those services would be "legal" rather than "pirate" services because the contract permits them.
By itself that doesn't solve the current Sony problem: Sony doesn't offer those terms of purchase at the point of sale.
But if the technology becomes common and easy to the point of becoming a "new normal" consumer expectation, it will increase the pressure on companies who offer "purchase" and "rent" buttons to associate "purchase" with "you are purchasing the right to 'have' this item via the storage net" contractual terms. Or, if they don't, to prominently display a notice that you are not being offered a perpetual access right and it may be rescinded later without notice or refund - I could imagine that notice making its way into consumer law eventually, if its absence is found to be seriously misleading consumers without a good reason.
It's because it will become possible and well known to be able to offer perpetual access to things like movies "as if" an actual file or physical object had been transferred, even while still complying with upstream studio's licensing and region locking demands that are designed to ensure most people pay, that some companies may start to use this approach profitably, and then cultural expectations may follow so that other companies have to do the same.
In a sense, the artificial scarcity of NFTs may help bridge the tension between file producers' desire to control access to pressure most people into paying, and consumers' desire that when you've "purchased" something it behaves a bit more like a physical object in your possession.
So it helps, but only in an idealistic world where data centres and the siloing of data no longer exist as a concept. It's precipitated on major changes to how business and regulation works, happening. That the current competitive advantage that is ruthlessly enforced by all companies becomes regulated out of existence. Something that cannot happen in the current environment. In short - it requires naivety to think that it _might_ help in the future.
The lack of enforcement for digital goods is largely the result of there being no technology to proof ownership in a digital world. Hard to force companies to adopt a thing that doesn't exist. That's exactly the hole that NFT could fill.
> The lack of enforcement for digital goods is largely the result of there being no technology to proof ownership in a digital world. Hard to force companies to adopt a thing that doesn't exist. That's exactly the hole that NFT could fill.
The real world actually doesn't run with needs so hard and firm. A stat dec is nothing more than a signed sheet, and can "prove" any statement in a court of law. This isn't a case of the technology lacking in proving ownership. We already have all of that, legally speaking.
The reason this idealistic world does not exist, is simply because the distributors do not wish it to. In digital distribution, you don't distribute an existing item, you copy it. Thus, first sale which transfers something, cannot be enforced. They control distribution, they prevent undue proliferation.
Proving that you own something is not the problem at hand. DRM is not integrated into all of these platforms to prove ownership of an item. They are to prevent someone else becoming the distributor.
Which means that... Coming all the way back to square one... When the distributor doesn't distribute... You can't do anything. Sony have already acknowledged that they are cutting off owners. They are aware of ownership. NFTs don't add or take from that, they serve to fill a purpose that is already filled. Owners are acknowledged. Owners access is being removed.
> The reason this idealistic world does not exist, is simply because the distributors do not wish it to.
Companies can only do what the laws allows them to do, and as I already linked, laws exists to prevent companies from double-dipping when it comes to physical IP goods. Once the thing is sold, it's out of their control and people can resell it as much as they want. Apply the same principles to digital goods and the problem is solved. But to do so you need a technical framework for digital good ownership to work in a similar fashion to physical goods, which NFTs could do.
> Sony have already acknowledged that they are cutting off owners. They are aware of ownership.
It's not "ownership" when Sony has full and exclusive controller over it and can terminate it at any time for whatever reason they chose. That's clear violation of First-sale doctrine. Especially since they love to pretend that you "Buy" the things in their digital stores, without clearly labeling that it's actually a "Rent for an arbitrary and limited time".
> When the distributor doesn't distribute... You can't do anything.
Piracy exists. Companies don't have to play nice to allow any of this, the law just needs to scale back a little in protecting them.
NFTs are transferable and service-independent. Meaning you can trade used digital media and they will continue working even when Sony goes out of business, just like physical media would. Another big advantage is that they are generic, they are just abstract "ownership", you can use them for books, games, monkey pictures or concert tickets. Any normal commercial alternative would almost certainly be locked to a specific type of media and to a set of companies, along with strict rules to follow, if they allow any outsiders to participate at all. NFTs are an open system where everybody can build something with them.
That said, this is all very theoretical. Blockchain needs to get fast and cheap before any of this makes sense.
Where do you stash your receipts? Somewhere you'll find them in two years time when challenged to prove you paid for something? Think that solution scales through the entirety of society?
Sony could make a blockchain/NFT solution to their problem and everyone would be happy - it'd be future-proof, licenses would be in-perpetuity, and nobody would have to pay much for the effort. Heck, it'd even give pirates a way to become legitimate service providers.
Sony et al., are not doing this, because of antiquated business ideas that serve more as dark patterns than anything else.
>It does when I need to get a repair for something I bought that is still under warranty.
This simply doesn't scale through the entirety of society, because its only relevant to you and your relationship with the content provider.
If I'm being challenged on the ownership of movies on my personal laptop - having a publicly accessible register of my purchase of those movies is entirely more useful to me - and society at large - than the "private receipts stashed in a drawer" model you propose is superior to NFT's.
>Also: does keeping a cryptographic key safe scale through the entirety of society?
Yes. I can depend on it if I need to defend myself against claims of piracy and theft of intellectual property, no matter where I am in the world.. Having a globally-accessible register of my licenses is quite a bit more useful than if those receipts are stashed in a paper file somewhere remote.
> the "private receipts stashed in a drawer" model you propose is superior to NFT's.
I've never said it's "superior". I simply mean it's good enough. I should probably have been more clear on that.
Also:
> This [physical/digital receipt] simply doesn't scale through the entirety of society, because its only relevant to you and your relationship with the content provider.
But then
> I can depend on it [NFT/public ledger] if I need to defend myself against claims of piracy and theft of intellectual property, no matter where I am in the world
Sorry but I find this contradictory. Can you please explain why the receipt is only relevant me and the content provider but a public ledger isn't? You mean "relevant" as in "there are more actors that can give a 'truth value' to the transaction"?
The paper receipt is in your drawer somewhere, you cannot provide it when you're crossing a border and need to convince the security thug that you do in fact own all those movies.
An NFT, on the other hand, can be looked up by anyone, anywhere.
I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this. The NFT receipt solves a lot of problems that a paper receipt simply makes worse.
There's nothing hard to understand. I'm simply wondering whether these use cases ("crossing a border and need to convince the security thug that you do in fact own all those movies") are really so pressing AND don't depend on other problems being solved first.
It's already been brought up by many others, but proof of purchase is not the issue here, right? It's the right to access the content. NFTs don't force Sony to give you your content if they're not legally obliged to.
Appreciate you writing up a more terse version. Tangentially, I fed the article into GPT-3, then led with the prompt:
> Q: Was the above article written by a bot? Explain your reasoning.
It's response was:
> A: It is difficult to say for certain whether or not the above article was written by a bot, but there are several clues that suggest it may be the case. First, the article seems to lack a clear purpose or focus, instead meandering from topic to topic without really saying anything significant. Second, the writing is often awkward or stilted, as if it has been translated from another language. Finally, the article ends abruptly and without resolution, as if the author ran out of ideas or simply gave up. Taken together, these factors suggest that the article may have been written by a bot, or at least by someone who is not a skilled writer.
I don't think it was written by a bot, just in a post-modern style. I think the article has a point, which I take to mean some at the higher levels of achievement are especially susceptible to imposter syndrome can become dependent on the analyst, and since those at higher levels of achievement usually have money, they can spend a lot chasing answers (It reminds me a little of plastic surgery addiction)
In software at least, just landing a nice paying job seems to cause impostor syndrome, especially if it's one of your first. I guess getting a job offer is a sort of praise though, which fits your point.
The wording does seem open-ended, but note this phrase
> If you choose to link your Microsoft Xbox Services account with your account on a non-Microsoft service or sign in to your Xbox Services account to access a non-Microsoft Service...
I work on a service that tracks game activity for users, but we require them to go through the OAuth process and explicitly give us permission to do so.
Yeah and how much is it really a choice? Either you do this or you don't have access to <games or features of games> , but it's still "your choice". Shady as fuck and clearly not a 'choice'. Weasel words.
Yeah it seems like it's not that sinister of a clause. At least at first glance it reads as if nothing gets shared if you stick just to the game and not explicitly involve third-party services.
How do you select the first guess? e.g. the clue is "popular yellow cartoon bear", and the answer is "pooh". You can satisfy the crossword using random words and a dictionary somewhat easily, but that's not really the task at hand.
Definitely an underrated movie.