To be more precise without an example it means everyone can get the exact same copy of the the digital art that they sell as NFTs.
Yes, every person who has the image can gain satisfaction by looking it, but that is just missing the point. What matters is the rights of the image. The fact that I can now go outdoors and start writing on sites that I'm the damned owner with a proof. Obviously, there has to be consensus on which chain there's agreement. So, that I don't have the same rights on each.
I like seeing it that way:
An NFT is a unique digital object.
Scarcity is either enforced offline (like a ticket to an event), by a smart contract (like a .eth domain), or by a social contract with a community (artists, fans, punks, apes).
“You can’t right-click and save a community.”
I do believe it is worth it in case of bitcoin since the utility bitcoin provides is so valuable and useful that it justifies all that but I honestly cannot see the same benefit provided by projects known as Smart Contract Platforms that nowadays focus on NFTs.
The fact that NFTs can work on bitcoin, but haven't shows me that Solana, Ethereum etc. are pure hype. I don't want to own anything from such chains, but I would be interested on purchasing the rights of a Yu-Gi-Oh card by Konami, for instance, if they were working on bitcoin instead.