>>9101772Not that anon
>What are the implications of this, though?It'll be like DRM control for models and images. It's the same thing they do with other things like CDs and video games. I think the problem is that since toys are tangible objects in the real world (unlike DVDs and video games which rely on code), I don't think it'll take off. I could see it happening more so for digital cards than toys. Its similar to what the application Quidd does with you 'owning' a 3D model of a toy or image. It's funny because they still let you see the image and model, etc. but you don't 'own' it.
>Are we going to start seeing legal action against people that share an image without consent of the “true owner”?Probably. I could see legal action against claiming ownership of already copyrighted material as people try to literally make rare Pepes as NFTs.
>Is this gonna be a new form of piracy?I don't think so in its current form. I think the funny thing is it just says you claim ownership of the item, but the item itself is still able to be copied. Someone explained it well on another thread. It would be like saying they own the Mona Lisa, but what you really own is the image of the Mona Lisa, while the real one sits in a vault under the museum's ownership. And then imagine if you could take a screenshot of the Mona Lisa and people can now claim they own the Mona Lisa, but the real 'owner' is the only one with the code to claim ownership. Meanwhile none of those people own the Mona Lisa, they only own a digital copy of it (that can easily be downloaded online).
>It all sounds so stupid.Agreed. It makes sense maybe from the persepctive of trying to claim ownership of content, and then replace 'content' with 3D models of toys and images of artwork. In the future when VR is a household thing it may have better traction, but for now the appeal is lost imo.
