NFTs make me feel how my dad probably does when I try and explain crypto to him. Am I missing something or are they actually nonsense?

Okay, I get the concept. The NFT basically demonstrates ownership of a digital asset that itself can be copied. Essentially, the logic is that by owning the NFT, you are the true owner.

But I don't get it.

Let's say I own a real painting. That painting is unique and only one exists. Other people might have copies, but only I have the original and only I can view it.

If I have a digital image, anyone can view it, and their experience is exactly the same as mine – except I have paid money for the privilege, whilst they get it for free.

That makes no sense.

Then I hear people are selling Tweets. But what do I get with the NFT? Because the Tweet itself resides on Twitter's servers. Also, the person that wrote the original tweet could presumably delete it at any point? Twitter could shut down? Do their terms and conditions lay any claim to people's tweets? Does the NFT override that?

That makes no sense.

What is the legal status of NFT? Do the courts recognise them as valid proof of ownership? If not, what exactly am I buying?

Still not making any sense.

Which blockchain are they stored on? Why that blockchain and not another? If I create my own NFT blockchain, who's to say mine is not the genuine record?

I honestly don't get it.

How do you prove you have the right to make a NFT for an item to begin with? But if you can prove you have such a right, what's the point of the NFT?

Equally, digital ownership is nothing new. The law already deals extensively with ownership of electronic content, whether it be music, images or software. So in that sense, I'm not even sure what NFTs are trying to solve.