The screenshotting "problem" of NFTs is a joke. If taken seriously, it completely misses the point of what NFTs try to accomplish. But it highlights an interesting misunderstanding / disconnect in the definition of ownership NFTs use vs the type of ownership we're commonly used to.

When you want to have art, it's usually because of its utility: you may want to set it as your wallpaper, as your avatar, use it in a blogpost or a video, send it to your friends as a reaction pic, or just look at it when you're sad to be reminded that foxes are the cutest animal ever.

Traditional forms of "ownership" - owning physical paintings or holding copyright over a work - give the "owner" some ability to prevent you from using the art like this.

But NFTs don't even try to do that

AFAIU, the NFT folks don't care abaout art's utility, and therrfore NFTs don't try to secure any exclusive rights to use the art. They don't care about wallpapers so they don't prevent you from using it as a wallpaper.

Instead they only care about the value of art as a collectible item that increases its value over time. That's the value NFTs are trying to capture.

Like gold or bitcoin, their value is mostly speculative - they're worth something because people believe they are.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not an economist, and I haven't even looked much into NFTs, it's just my noob understanding based on things I've heard