The blockchain hype train has made its rounds through every industry, from finance to healthcare, and now it’s making a full-speed attempt to “revolutionize” video content ownership. Supposedly, blockchain is the messiah that will solve piracy, remove greedy middlemen, and ensure that creators get paid fairly for their work. Sounds amazing, right? Almost too good to be true. Because it is. For every claim that blockchain will decentralize the digital video industry, there’s an inconvenient technical reality standing in the way.

The dream of immutable video rights management, direct-to-fan monetization, and ironclad piracy prevention has been packaged and resold a hundred times over. The result? A scattered mess of blockchain-based video projects, most of which are either in beta, abandoned, or catering to a niche group of early adopters still trying to convince the world that NFTs are a good idea. So, let’s put on our technical hats (and snarky goggles) and take a closer look at the actual mechanics behind this so-called “revolution.”

The Blockchain Gospel: What It Promises

The Immutable Ledger of Justice

The core of blockchain’s promise in video content ownership revolves around its immutable ledger. Theoretically, every video uploaded to a blockchain-based system gets a unique cryptographic hash, timestamped and stored across a distributed network. The ledger ensures that ownership, licensing terms, and distribution history cannot be tampered with—no more shady backroom deals, no more stolen content, no more YouTube copyright strikes from “Music Label LLC” claiming ownership over a sound effect you recorded yourself. But there’s a problem.

Blockchain’s immutability is a double-edged sword. Once something is recorded, it’s there forever. That sounds great until someone accidentally uploads stolen content, encodes incorrect metadata, or just outright commits fraud. Sure, you can append new transactions that correct past errors, but you can’t erase anything. It’s like writing your to-do list in permanent marker on your car’s windshield—great until you realize you wrote “laundry” twice and forgot to add “pick up kids.”

And then there’s the issue of file storage. Blockchain itself isn’t great for storing large video files—unless you enjoy network congestion and exorbitant transaction fees. Most blockchain-based video projects solve this by storing metadata about the video on-chain while hosting the actual video files off-chain, typically on decentralized storage networks like IPFS. Which brings us to the next problem:

Decentralization: A Fancy Word for ‘Nobody’s in Charge’

In blockchain’s ideal world, there’s no centralized authority controlling video distribution. No YouTube, no Netflix, no Vimeo. Just pure, trustless, peer-to-peer transactions where creators sell their content directly to audiences. Sounds great—until you realize that “decentralized” also means “good luck getting customer support when something breaks.”

The lack of centralized control creates logistical headaches. Without a governing body enforcing standardization, different blockchain-based video platforms operate on different protocols, with varying degrees of usability and security. One platform might use Ethereum smart contracts for licensing, while another relies on some obscure, low-transaction-cost blockchain with questionable long-term viability.

Meanwhile, viewers have to navigate gas fees, crypto wallets, and token-based access just to watch a ten-minute clip that could’ve been easily streamed on YouTube with a single click. And let’s not forget moderation. When no single entity is in control, who removes pirated content? Who ensures that your latest film isn’t stolen, re-uploaded, and sold as an NFT by someone who just figured out how to right-click and save?

NFTs for Video Content: The Revolution That (Mostly) Benefits Speculators

Selling Video Ownership as Digital Baseball Cards

One of blockchain’s most hyped use cases for video content ownership is tokenization—turning videos into NFTs (non-fungible tokens) that supposedly prove ownership, grant exclusive access, or facilitate royalties. The idea is that you can “own” a video in a provable way, like a digital collector’s item. And that’s exactly the problem.

NFT-based video ownership often functions less like a licensing model and more like a speculative trading scheme. Creators mint videos as NFTs, sell them to collectors, and hope that someone down the line will pay even more for them. Rather than solving piracy or licensing issues, it just creates a new market where people buy and sell digital assets based on perceived rarity—like Pokémon cards, but more expensive and less likely to increase in value.

The Problem With ‘Owning’ a Video on the Blockchain

The truth is, NFT ownership does not mean legal ownership. If you buy an NFT representing a video, all you really own is a cryptographic key pointing to a metadata entry that references the video. The video itself? That’s still hosted somewhere else, often on centralized servers or IPFS nodes that may or may not stay online forever. If those nodes disappear, your precious NFT becomes a receipt for a file that no longer exists.

And then there’s the copyright mess. Owning an NFT of a video doesn’t necessarily give you distribution rights, modification rights, or even the right to legally enforce your “ownership.” The current legal framework around NFT-based content rights is murky at best, which means that in most cases, blockchain is solving a problem that didn’t exist while creating several new ones in the process.

Automating Licensing or Just Adding More Complexity?

The Promise of Self-Executing Video Rights

Smart contracts are often touted as the backbone of blockchain-based video monetization. The idea is simple: Instead of relying on traditional licensing agreements, smart contracts can automatically enforce terms. If someone wants to use a video, they pay the required amount, and the blockchain handles the transaction instantly, transferring funds to the creator without intermediaries.

In theory, this means instant payments, automatic royalty distribution, and an end to convoluted legal battles over licensing terms. In reality, smart contracts are just as complex and error-prone as traditional legal agreements, except now, they’re written in Solidity and can’t be changed once deployed. If someone codes a flaw into the contract, congratulations—you’re stuck with it.

The Blockchain Bloat Problem

Every blockchain transaction, including licensing and royalty payments, comes with fees. Ethereum gas fees alone can make microtransactions impractical, which is why many blockchain-based video platforms either use side chains or require users to pre-purchase platform-specific tokens to transact. This adds another layer of friction, making adoption even less appealing for mainstream users.

And don’t get started on scalability. Writing every single transaction related to video ownership, licensing, and monetization onto a blockchain sounds great—until you realize that even the most efficient blockchains struggle to handle the sheer volume of transactions required for large-scale content platforms.

Game-Changer or Just Another Overhyped Tech Bubble?

The Blockchain-Visionary’s Dream

In a perfect world, blockchain could indeed create a transparent, fair, and decentralized ecosystem for video content. Smart contracts would handle licensing seamlessly, NFT ownership would carry actual legal weight, and piracy would become a thing of the past. Creators would finally be in full control of their content, and tech monopolies would be a distant memory.

The (More Likely) Reality

Blockchain-based video solutions are still in their infancy, and most current implementations are either too complex, too niche, or too impractical for widespread adoption. Centralized platforms like YouTube and Netflix aren’t going anywhere, because at the end of the day, convenience always beats ideology.

So, is blockchain actually revolutionizing video content ownership? Right now, not really. Could it eventually? Maybe. But until then, enjoy watching the hype cycle repeat itself—probably on a Web2 platform.

‍