So, I think it's important to recognize that the way Wikipedia got to the place it has as an authority for disputes its fundamental principles: encyclopediac content, written from a neutral point of view using reliable sources, that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. In particular the idea of depending on "reliable sources" means that in practice Wikipedia will be the last (or median) institution to change its definition of some controversial concept; you will have to get the newspapers and scientific publications to agree that the concept of philosophy can be owned before Wikipedia, according to its own guidelines, would agree to such a proposition.
I just think that's an interesting way of thinking about it.
As I understand it (although I'm not a lawyer, I should say) when you own property what you own is a bundle of (exclusive) rights, the specific rights depending on the type of property. So when you own land, you have the right (in general) exclude people from it—but not to build a toxic waste factory on it (or even an extension to your house). When you own a book, you have a right to the physical object, and can sell it, burn it, keep it, read it out loud to your kids—but not type the contents up and post them on the internet. When you own a copyright, you have the right to control who can copy a book—but not to repossess physical copies or get a cut of the sale of used ones.
All of that is straightforward enough, nothing that a solid semester of studying property in law school shouldn't clear up.
What exclusive right do you have when you own an NFT? I think you own only the right to say you own it. i.e. your placard theory. If there's anything else involved I've missed it.
As far as conceptual art goes, an interesting case to consider with conceptual art: artists, for practice if naught else, sometimes copy a painting in a museum (which the museums cooperate with). I suspect that good artists could produce a copy which is impossible to tell apart from the original by looking (i.e. without a chemical analysis of the type of paint, or whatever); at least one museum that I know of requires artists to make their copy at least 20% (IMS) different in size, either bigger or smaller, presumably to prevent theft. This strikes me as a useful comparison for conceptual art: duck-taping a banana to a wall is simply making a copy of The Comedian, as you might make a copy of the Mona Lisa or a Vermeer or whatever; it's just that The Comedian is a much, much easier artwork to copy than most. (For that matter, some modern art which is unquestionably painting and unquestionably a *thing* you can own is probably pretty easy to copy too.)
So one reason I like for buying NFTs is that when you do so, and when you credibly signal that you will buy future stuff, you incentivize the creation of more stuff which is your kind of good shit. And because crypto has gone up in value, there are a lot of newly rich people wanting to be patrons. This is similar for the case of retroactive public goods funding.
Separately and in addition to that positive case, you have a cesspool of scams and ponzi schemes.
I think the placard theory is closest to reality. But I also think the blockchain technology is doing an important job here that you're dismissing too quickly. Imagine that we allow pretty much anything to be bought and sold placard-style, and as you suggest we start by using Wikipedia to store the virtual placards. So now when I sell you the color maroon, who updates the Wikipedia page? And how do we make sure that people *don't* update the page *without* a sale taking place? We *could* do this using normal Wikipedia as it stands - anyone could try to update the page at inappropriate times but then vigilant other users would edit it back and get the offenders banned. And when a sale *does* take place, the editor could upload documentation along with their edit so people know it's legit. But this all sounds slow, annoyingly manual, and prone to errors - wouldn't it be better if instead of Wikipedia, we used a different software system that *immediately*, *automatically*, and *incorruptibly* updated the placard the instant a sale took place? That's all the blockchain is. So you're right that there's an important matter of persuasion here, but the key thing that the NFT people are trying to persuade you of is that blockchain *is* just the Wikipedia in your example except faster and more correct. Now you might argue that there's a difference of how much each is recognized/used/etc - Wikipedia for all its flaws is universally understood to be one of our central repositories of knowledge, whereas blockchain is universally understood to be one of our central repositories of bullshit and Ponzi schemes. But since this is just a question of perception, the NFT folks are correct *exactly if they can convince you that they are correct* - if enough people agree that blockchain is a better central source of placards than Wikipedia is, then it becomes true.
I think when someone buys The Comedian, *part* of what they are buying is some protection from intellectual property rights. Exactly what form these rights take, if any, is unclear, but I can't imagine the original artist having any success in the legal system enforcing any rights to a work against someone they have explicitly and voluntarily sold it to.
I don't think a lot of NFTs even pass this low bar. I'm not sure they really provide any legal right to even display a copy of the piece of art?
So, I think it's important to recognize that the way Wikipedia got to the place it has as an authority for disputes its fundamental principles: encyclopediac content, written from a neutral point of view using reliable sources, that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. In particular the idea of depending on "reliable sources" means that in practice Wikipedia will be the last (or median) institution to change its definition of some controversial concept; you will have to get the newspapers and scientific publications to agree that the concept of philosophy can be owned before Wikipedia, according to its own guidelines, would agree to such a proposition.
I just think that's an interesting way of thinking about it.
As I understand it (although I'm not a lawyer, I should say) when you own property what you own is a bundle of (exclusive) rights, the specific rights depending on the type of property. So when you own land, you have the right (in general) exclude people from it—but not to build a toxic waste factory on it (or even an extension to your house). When you own a book, you have a right to the physical object, and can sell it, burn it, keep it, read it out loud to your kids—but not type the contents up and post them on the internet. When you own a copyright, you have the right to control who can copy a book—but not to repossess physical copies or get a cut of the sale of used ones.
All of that is straightforward enough, nothing that a solid semester of studying property in law school shouldn't clear up.
What exclusive right do you have when you own an NFT? I think you own only the right to say you own it. i.e. your placard theory. If there's anything else involved I've missed it.
As far as conceptual art goes, an interesting case to consider with conceptual art: artists, for practice if naught else, sometimes copy a painting in a museum (which the museums cooperate with). I suspect that good artists could produce a copy which is impossible to tell apart from the original by looking (i.e. without a chemical analysis of the type of paint, or whatever); at least one museum that I know of requires artists to make their copy at least 20% (IMS) different in size, either bigger or smaller, presumably to prevent theft. This strikes me as a useful comparison for conceptual art: duck-taping a banana to a wall is simply making a copy of The Comedian, as you might make a copy of the Mona Lisa or a Vermeer or whatever; it's just that The Comedian is a much, much easier artwork to copy than most. (For that matter, some modern art which is unquestionably painting and unquestionably a *thing* you can own is probably pretty easy to copy too.)
So one reason I like for buying NFTs is that when you do so, and when you credibly signal that you will buy future stuff, you incentivize the creation of more stuff which is your kind of good shit. And because crypto has gone up in value, there are a lot of newly rich people wanting to be patrons. This is similar for the case of retroactive public goods funding.
Separately and in addition to that positive case, you have a cesspool of scams and ponzi schemes.
I think the placard theory is closest to reality. But I also think the blockchain technology is doing an important job here that you're dismissing too quickly. Imagine that we allow pretty much anything to be bought and sold placard-style, and as you suggest we start by using Wikipedia to store the virtual placards. So now when I sell you the color maroon, who updates the Wikipedia page? And how do we make sure that people *don't* update the page *without* a sale taking place? We *could* do this using normal Wikipedia as it stands - anyone could try to update the page at inappropriate times but then vigilant other users would edit it back and get the offenders banned. And when a sale *does* take place, the editor could upload documentation along with their edit so people know it's legit. But this all sounds slow, annoyingly manual, and prone to errors - wouldn't it be better if instead of Wikipedia, we used a different software system that *immediately*, *automatically*, and *incorruptibly* updated the placard the instant a sale took place? That's all the blockchain is. So you're right that there's an important matter of persuasion here, but the key thing that the NFT people are trying to persuade you of is that blockchain *is* just the Wikipedia in your example except faster and more correct. Now you might argue that there's a difference of how much each is recognized/used/etc - Wikipedia for all its flaws is universally understood to be one of our central repositories of knowledge, whereas blockchain is universally understood to be one of our central repositories of bullshit and Ponzi schemes. But since this is just a question of perception, the NFT folks are correct *exactly if they can convince you that they are correct* - if enough people agree that blockchain is a better central source of placards than Wikipedia is, then it becomes true.
I think when someone buys The Comedian, *part* of what they are buying is some protection from intellectual property rights. Exactly what form these rights take, if any, is unclear, but I can't imagine the original artist having any success in the legal system enforcing any rights to a work against someone they have explicitly and voluntarily sold it to.
I don't think a lot of NFTs even pass this low bar. I'm not sure they really provide any legal right to even display a copy of the piece of art?