> It’s not really ownership though is it. The tweet is Jack’s, he can delete it if he wishes.
Would there not be some liability in doing so? Legally the buyer does own it (it seems) and Jack simply has control over it.
Would there not be some liability in doing so? Legally the buyer does own it (it seems) and Jack simply has control over it.
As for the hypothetical contract not to delete it yourself, you'd probably have a good argument that there was no clear meeting of the minds - without an explicit description of what the author intended to be bound to by selling a NFT you'll have a hard time getting the courts to enforce anything about it.
Ignoring NFTs you could define selling your tweet as:
* Selling the copyright to your tweet
* Selling the right to delete your tweet
Digital ownership is a new and nuanced concept that doesn't have good analogues. Ownership through public/private keys has no analogue and also feel absurd in any analogy using safes and keys.
Digitally, it is perfectly clear:
You own the NFT. Through what is written on a tweet and a website it can be interpreted as the representation of Jack's tweet. You don't have any further owenship or rights.
As I explain in this comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26372130) there's a nuance between owning the NFT representation of the tweet and owning the ability to delete the tweet.