An NFT is a Non-Fungible Token. This just means it's sufficiently different from others in the set to be told apart. If I give you this one, and I get another one to replace it, they're different. Minting pointers to art projects is one use of NFTs.

You can have an NFT of the number 37 for example – it doesn't have to point at anything. It just needs to follow EIP-721 (a subset of ERC-20), or any similarly-worded standard.

> This standard is inspired by the ERC-20 token standard and builds on two years of experience since EIP-20 was created. EIP-20 is insufficient for tracking NFTs because each asset is distinct (non-fungible) whereas each of a quantity of tokens is identical (fungible).

An NFT is a unique pointer, but the pointee doesn't have to be unique. You can have any number of NFTs pointing to the same object, NFTs don't inherently guarantee uniqueness of anything other than themselves. The token is non-fungible, the item the token is "for" can be fungible or non-fungible.

I’m perfectly aware of what NFTs are and nothing in your comment is in contradiction with what I said. Abstractly speaking an NFT work like a unique pointer, the thing it points to can be whatever you want (like the number 37 in your example).

In one case the number 37 is an address that represents control over a subsection of a global network. So it is actually important that the owner of it has rights to the thing pointed at (the network, not the number 37 abstractly, but the addresses with 37 in the most significant bits are allocatable by whoever holds 37. Enforced by the smart contract and a consensus rule in the software that it supports... one could fork the software and point the consensus rule at a different smart contract, but then it would not be the same network anymore.)

If yall are buying leaf NFTs that cannot mint other NFTs, then I don't think you get to own anything other than the paper it's printed on. But that does not mean that NFTs cannot be used to own real things, or to enforce ownership of those real things (like a network, insomuch as a network is a real thing.) They can, and do.

Hey thats true, is that happening? From my understanding people are also re-uploading the images their newly deployed NFTs point to

I don’t know but I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case. That’s a clear copyright infringement, no? I don’t expect them to buy the rights in addition to their precious unique pointer.

That actually makes it funnier, if by making an NFT point to an existing copyrighted work’s link (without reuploading) that circumvents the copyright infringement because nothing was even copied.

I’m trying to think about even if the licensing issue would be circumvented or squirmed around.

I’m ready to argue that its more like selling a TV to view existing content.

An NFT pointing to the official image already uploaded officially elsewhere can neither be theft or copyright infringement, and fraud can be mitigated if it is written somewhere about who the copyright holder is.

Just to clarify my previous comment, I meant that the reupload is copyright infringement.

> I’m ready to argue that its more like selling a TV to view existing content.

That’s a really nice analogy. The television is also a pointer of some sort, but that communicates the idea nicely and sounds less technical. And naturally move the focus of the discussion to the licensing of the aired content.

I might steal the idea for future discussions :)