What does an NFT add over a PKI signature? The rights holders aren’t going to allow their materials to be published without restriction and they’re not going to accept claims from anyone they don’t trust, not to mention many people won’t want their media purchase history being published.
A useful example of what this would likely look like is Movies Anywhere. That was created by the big studios to limit the tech companies’ control, and it limits transfers to the stores they trust.
I think a key question for NFT licensing would be how it would get the power to force something different, especially when that costs more.
NFT behave like physical goods, they can't be duplicated, but they can be transferred. A plain PKI signature does not and if you surround it by additional bookkeeping that you can, you are just reinventing your own NFT.
Furthermore you have to consider the long game here, what happens if the company you bought the good from goes under? Stops running the service, etc.? With NFTs that is in theory a complete non-issue, you can just go to your next library, show them your NFT and they give you a copy of the movie. NFTs basically allow you to ignore copyright, as the NFT proves that no "copy" in the traditional sense took place, as you already owned the content. So you no longer are required to get your movie from the rights holder, you can get it from anybody that has a copy. If you own the NFT you are allowed to get a copy of the movie. And the NFT can be found on a used market if the company no longer sells it themselves.
As for companies not joining in, that's not for them to decide. You are already allowed by law to sell your goods. That's existing law. It's just difficult to enforce when there is no system in place that allows selling used digital good. NFTs could provide the foundation for such a system.
> NFTs basically allow you to ignore copyright, as the NFT proves that no "copy" in the traditional sense took place, as you already owned the content. So you no longer are required to get your movie from the rights holder, you can get it from anybody that has a copy.
I think this is the core misunderstanding which makes NFTs appear useful. NFTs in fact do not allow you to ignore copyright and NFTs do not show ownership unless there's a separate contract conveying legal rights to the current NFT holder. That's why the entire scenario outlined doesn't work: if Amazon goes out of business, I can show Apple my receipts (PKI signed or not) but whether Apple will grant me the ability to get a copy comes down to the legal terms under which I licensed a copy from Amazon and what Apple has negotiated with the actual owner.
If those parties want to allow me to do this — as, for example, they did with Movies Anywhere — they don't need a blockchain because the key legal requirement is Amazon originally saying they sold me a license.
If the owner doesn't want to add a transfer clause which wasn't already there, or allows Apple to charge me a transfer fee, an NFT again does nothing to change the situation because legally I do not have any right to the content: what I bought was permission to use Amazon's service to display it.
A useful example of what this would likely look like is Movies Anywhere. That was created by the big studios to limit the tech companies’ control, and it limits transfers to the stores they trust.
I think a key question for NFT licensing would be how it would get the power to force something different, especially when that costs more.