NFTs are such a sham to claim fake "ownership" of an asset. All the images/files are public anyways.
Nothing stops me from creating another blockchain and call it NFTv2. And then I can create an NFT which points to the original asset. Its just as legit as the Etherium one.
Or just change the link to the same file and create an NFT on the Etherium blockchain.
You can also copy and set up your own land registry and say it's all yours. Yes, it's all a social convention, like all property. If enough people decide it's "real" then it is.
You can't copy and enjoy my property for free, you can copy and enjoy an NFT for free.
If you were to get the new Land Registry enforced you would have to change the law, in which case the blockchain is no longer needed since the idea and enforcement of ownership is centralised with the government.
> You can't copy and enjoy my property for free, you can copy and enjoy an NFT for free.
Your wording here makes it seem like you confuse the NFT (the pointer to the content) with the content itself.
If your property is an authentic piece of fine art, it can be copied/forged. An NFT doesn't prevent unauthorized copying; it only asserts ownership of the official copy, similar to a receipt of the transaction (which must be publicly and immutably stored and displayed in public).
The "NFT" is not the property itself, hence copying is not of the NFT itself; it is a notary's public assertion that a transaction of the asserted property (URL) happened.
I agree that NFTs don't solve the issues you raise in your second sentence.
NFTs has nothing to do with ownership or uniqueness of the image itself. It's all about bragging rights that you bought something that was minted by X.
Nothing stops me from creating another blockchain and call it NFTv2. And then I can create an NFT which points to the original asset. Its just as legit as the Etherium one.
Or just change the link to the same file and create an NFT on the Etherium blockchain.