Yeah, really no more valuable than a dead tree format certificate with an artists' signature of authenticity on it. Much like that not worth the paper it's printed on if so one isn't enforcing it or a very large body of people agree "that's the one"

Yes, its exactly like that - and that's fine. That is how they are designed and intended.

NFT provides publicly verifiable record of ownership and limited edition-ness (aka scarcity), which has the side effect of making buyers treat digital files like tangible items.

All the decentralized posturing and politics is a distraction from actual entrepreneurs building actual real-world applications, using NFT in the same way you use SQL or HTTP

>NFT provides publicly verifiable record of ownership and limited edition-ness (aka scarcity)

Could you explain how the NFT provides the latter? Because it sounds like that's what your contract process and legal assurances ensure - those aren't happening on the blockchain, are they?

I’m not referring to ownership of the underlying copyright. I’m referring to ownership of the limited edition good! Works really well for that.

Right, I was asking about the other half of your claim: How does the NFT provide proof of the "limited edition-ness (aka scarcity)" of the good that it provides proof of ownership for? I don't see how the NFT or blockchain allows you to verify that - as far as I can tell, that must always be a matter of trusting your company, and the process it has in place before minting things, to ensure no duplicates are ever made.

A digital file isn't scarce. I can make as many copies as I want.