The resilience, usefulness, and value of a system often isn' its elegance but its adaption. A decentralized trust system IS immensely valuable if it can be done because it allows for a lot of transactions that right now falls between chairs in the digital space.
A lot of the critique of the blockchain is based on the belief that digital allows for abundance (copy paste) and that that is the value of digital. But the reality is that there is plenty of value in scarcity ESPECIALLY in the digital space as it opens up for establishing a unique digital footprint which itself has a lot of value.
As an example, you can't easily exchange a piece of music with a game asset. Or an ebook with a digital pokemon card as there is no medium for the transaction. In other words, a decentralized trust-based system allows, for example, for a second-hand market for among other things digital assets. Or put another way a decentralized blockchain based trust system allows for more fluidity in the market and allow for an ever-increasing level of sophisticated trades.
Our legal infrastructure is built for a non-digital reality, even governments would be interested in adopting the blockchain to allow them to implement regulation in the digital space too.
So I don't think it's silly at all, in fact, it feels a little bit like we are reliving the birth of the internet again when it comes to peoples opinions about it.
This sounds like you're trying to use blockchain to invent artificial scarcity for "digital goods." The only possible benefit I see from that is letting copyright owners preserve their current business models rather than adapt to the reality that bits are freely and easily copyable.
Why would we want that?
Its not about copyright as much as its about trust in the transaction between two seemingly unrelated digital assets. It allows me to trust that i am getting what i actually paid for and not a knockoff.
Watching something like fortnite makes it obvious that there is value in digital scarcity.
Yes there is. They're called Dollars.
Why?