I think the author has got it all wrong. The blockchain (and the NFT contract) don't make digital art scarce, nor do they confirm 'ownership'. It's been pointed out many times that anyone can create an NFT on a blockchain, and just because you own an NFT with a URL of
http://example.com/example.jpg doesn't stop anyone else from creating another NFT with the same URL.
An NFT is 'genuine' solely because the artist says it is. Anyone can make another NFT of Beeple's $69m picture, and it will be identifiable on the blockchain, but it won't be the 'original' because Beeple says it isn't. In other words, none of this is decentralised, it's all based upon real world authority.
Despite all the crypto verbiage, blockchains don't add or enable anything with NFTs. The artist, or a company, could easily just maintain a database showing who 'owns' which artwork NFT, and could update it when works are re-sold. The fact that this runs right now on the blockchain is just because it provides an existing database (and a polluting, expensive and cumbersome one at that!)
An NFT is 'genuine' solely because the artist says it is. Anyone can make another NFT of Beeple's $69m picture, and it will be identifiable on the blockchain, but it won't be the 'original' because Beeple says it isn't. In other words, none of this is decentralised, it's all based upon real world authority.
Despite all the crypto verbiage, blockchains don't add or enable anything with NFTs. The artist, or a company, could easily just maintain a database showing who 'owns' which artwork NFT, and could update it when works are re-sold. The fact that this runs right now on the blockchain is just because it provides an existing database (and a polluting, expensive and cumbersome one at that!)