If they did, then the same would apply.
For example, if the court orders you to turn over your Bitcoin holdings to creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding and instead you transfer them elsewhere, you are probably going to jail. When you transferred them, the coins were in your possession, but you weren't the rightful owner.
But NFTs and certain smart contracts are meticulously designing a custom form of ownership for themselves. That's what changes things. And this would be true even if they didn't use blockchains!
If you throw out all that custom ownership logic, you lose the core of what makes an NFT an NFT. Now it's just a few dozen bytes that anyone can mimic.
This is a situation specific to NFTs and people that are going super hard on smart contracts.
And even if I was a true believer in NFTs, yeah I'd probably ask the courts to do that, but doing so would be a betrayal of my beliefs and evidence that the foundation of NFTs is very shaky. The idea that I would do something hypocritical in such a hypothetical situation doesn't change the argument I made in my previous post.
