I'd argue that everything you listed can be reproduced, almost identically. But there's no value in doing so since it is not the original or was never authorized by the creator. Why does this change all of a sudden once we go digital? Is it because it's so much easier to reproduce something that originates digitally?
So the work has no value in and of itself? It seems to me like an unauthorized reproduction of a work of art has just as much intrinsic value as the same bits labeled "original". It evokes the same emotions and forms the same memories.
I don't think this is what you actually believe about art; you probably have your "investor" hat on. In that sense you are right, there is far less liquid value in an unauthorized reproduction than there is in an authentic original. But the actual value of the work in the eyes or ears of a beholder is the same regardless of the legal, historical, or social status of a reproduction. There are probably lots of great works in art collections that owners and viewers believe are original but are in fact illegal counterfeits. But a Rembrandt is still a Rembrandt, and Bach is still Bach, even if the source is The.Well.Tempered.Clavier-xxxWAREZLORDxxx-BEST.QUALITY.torrent.
Suppose I'm an artist that releases a limited digital run of an album and that NFTs are used to attribute ownership of the digital release. Would this have more, equal, or less value than an artist doing the same thing but with a physical limited run album release?
The actual music content can be pirated and made available just the same, whether or not it was physical or digital. The cost of the physical goods themselves is negligible. However, I feel like many people argue that the digital release via NFTs would be worth less because all you have to show for your ownership is a digital token, and not some sort of limited release physical item.
Surely it depends on how much you like the music?
> However, I feel like many people argue that the digital release via NFTs would be worth less because all you have to show for your ownership is a digital token
Correct. I value my vinyl copy of "Live Dead" by The Grateful Dead because I have had it for nearly 50 years, have played it countless times, rolled joints on it, and even like the scratches. It's also something that cannot be exactly copied, given current technology.
Having said that, most of my music is on MP3s, but the idea that referring to them via some block chain crap will give them "value" is just silly.
> Having said that, most of my music is on MP3s, but the idea that referring to them via some block chain crap will give them "value" is just silly.
I think the point here is that verifying ownership of digital goods is hard, because they are so easily reproduced identically. Blockchain technology and NFTs are one way to solve this problem because it allows you to have a verifiable chain of ownership which cannot be modified or faked. (ie. if a music release was as simple as the artist distributing an MP3 to 10 people, it would be impossible to tell who actually owned the "original" MP3).
Is it unreasonable to think that in 50 years, someone might look back at the limited digital release they got of their favourite album as fondly as you look back on your Live Dead record, and then pass that digital ownership down to their next of kin? It's a concept that's been explored time and time again physically but seems weirdly uncharted for anything digital.
But not identically. I can get a very nice print of the Mona Lisa, with very accurate colours. But it isn't at all an exact copy of the original. And I defy you to produce anything like a near-exact copy of a specific slice of bread.