We could talk about why this doesn't make sense on a technical level, or how Ethereum doesn't really have that much to do with AR or VR conceptually. Those are separate conversations. What really jumps out at me as odd though is the suggestion that NFTs would give consumers more agency over the IPs they interact with.

If I'm remembering the last NFT cycle correctly, what actually happened was that a lot of existing content got linked to tokens that transferred no rights over that content and that were basically completely pointless. Noticing this, some of the real content owners then looked into taking their content down so that the tokens would seem more valuable to any rich buyers that wanted to claim that they owned memes. It's very difficult for me to see how that result is pro-culture.

I think that a lot of the hype around NFTs is nonsensical and that the tokens are going to be mostly meaningless in the long run, but even in a world where NFTs do work, they're just as bad if not worse than any existing IP system that exists today. The goal of NFTs is to provide a mechanism that allows people to permenently own a non-tangible piece of shared culture in perpetuity for as long as they want until they decide to sell it to another buyer.

That's the complete opposite of what I was asking for above. Nobody is looking at the dystopian potential of the metaverse and saying, "the problem with existing copyright systems is that the ownership eventually expires."

You own an NFT of a Disney character, but that character is restricted to forbid performing the Vulcan salute, because that's from a different IP-verse. NFTs cannot be a fix for that. That's what's meant by not having agency.

The backlash from them trying to keep people from using a symbol that predates the IP it's often associated with would be interesting to watch.