If I'm understanding what you're referring to, this is one of the worst part of NFTs. How is it any different than me having to pay Ford a royalty when I sell my used car on Craigslist? It's such a toxic feature for consumers. Sure, when used correctly it could be cool to help creators or whatever. It will absolutely be abused. It already is being abused by scammers who create NFTs that can't be sold.

It can be abused, but it allows the creator or developer to align incentives in different ways.

eg if the royalty goes toward a DAO, maybe that DAO’s charter is to grow awareness for the NFT project. Or the rewards could accrue toward a staked project token that all community members hold, or fees could go back to the creator to fund development for next gen.

I don’t know the best use, but my point is because someone programmed royalties, there’s now another dimension of configuration for NFT projects.

That's not example of something NFTs can do, is it? Royalty fees are not programmable. How does the NFT know whether someone has to pay royalties? And how on earth is an NFT going to make people pay royalties? An NFT can't use coercive force.

It’s marketplace-specific right now but the standards are evolving to support it natively: https://www.gemini.com/blog/exploring-the-nft-royalty-standa...

The linked article talks about implementing a tax on re-sales of NFTs. It says nothing about royalty fees.

We might not be aligned on the definitions.

“EIP-2981 is a standard that focuses on signalling to market participants the royalty payment information for a given NFT or set of NFTs.”

I don't know what this means. Let's say I own the copyright of a musical composition, and I sell a license to a film producer. How does this standard help me collect royalty fees?

You make money upon the sale and transfer of the NFT.

I can see that. How would that help with collecting royalty fees in a typical scenario like the one I described?

I don’t fully understand the point of disagreement here.

It's a simple question.