[colonelpopcorn]

Digital ownership seems like a wonderful use case for blockchain technology, and it baffles me that there hasn't been a DRM company yet that's jumped on this idea.

[mfer]

I think there is a misconception. Most of the time you don't own the digital asset. This is an intentional quirk around money, contracts, etc. You have the right to use it in the present form through the platform as long as the platform has a contract with the IP owner to enable that.

For this to change there either needs to be incentive for the platform and IP owners or there needs to be legal changes to require it.

Also, blockchain means that anyone who has your ID can know you entire catalog of ownership. This removes privacy.

[Goronmon]

Digital ownership seems like a wonderful use case for blockchain technology, and it baffles me that there hasn't been a DRM company yet that's jumped on this idea.

Why would any content creator (outside of those specifically pushing it on idealogical grounds) want to lose control over the distribution of their content by using blockchain and cloud storage technologies?

[ForkMeOnTinder]

Putting digital ownership on a blockchain would mean enabling a secondary marketplace. Why would any big media company ever want to allow that?

[Goronmon]

Why would any big media company ever want to allow that?

Not even "big media companies". Why would even say, an indie game developer, want to have a secondary marketplace where there games are sold?

[freejazz]

Because it's actually not. The issue isn't the record keeping, they license because they can.

[Ekaros]

I hear about this all the time, but how is the hard side that is content delivery solved? It is really not about ownership, but delivery or then unlocking the local copy? Which gets pretty messy with enforcement and so on...

[mcmcdtx]

I keep seeing things that seem like they would be good uses for blockchain security and then I remember that all the investment in that space has gone into trying to print money.