Techdirt's 'Plagiarism Collection': A Plagiarized Set Of NFTs About Plagiarism

from the figure-this-one-out dept

As we noted last week, I'm going to be writing a deep dive paper, similar to my Protocols, Not Platforms paper, that explores the ins and outs of NFTs -- looking at the legal, cultural, economic, environmental issues related to NFTs. The idea is to explore the ways in which digital scarcity could prove to be different and interesting -- and also the many ways in which it may not be interesting at all. If you're at all interested in supporting this project, our crowdfund to back the paper (and to get a piece of the resulting NFT of the paper) is still going, though not for much longer.

As we're exploring these issues, however, we're also going to be doing a bit of experimenting with NFTs ourselves, to better understand how everything works. And the first thing we're doing is plagiarizing works by law professor/conceptual artist Brian L. Frye. You can now see our Techdirt Plagiarism Collection of eight NFTs, plagiarized (but, if I say so myself, vastly improved) from Brian L. Frye (you can see them all in the iframe below, but it's better to click through and see the whole thing). Those NFTs are now up for auction in an auction that will run for the next 10 days, ending on October 7th at 6pm PT (9pm ET).

I imagine that some of this will require some level of explanation -- though, I'm somewhat wary of killing the frog in the process.

If you're unfamiliar with Prof. Frye's work, you're missing out. You may recall us writing about his "OK, Landlord" project last year (which also became "OK, Landlord 🙄" Techdirt gear).

You may also recall that earlier this year, Frye wrote a piece for Techdirt criticizing the process of legal scholarship. Towards the end of that piece, he mentioned and linked to a recent Law Review piece he had written entitled Deodand, which as Frye describes it:

This article is a work of conceptual art reflecting on the concept of doing conceptual art in the medium of legal scholarship. It is also an homage to Yoko Ono's work Grapefruit.

The paper itself is well worth reading, explaining what "deodand" means, exploring the nature of common law, our understanding of common law, and explaining what Yoko Ono and her book Grapefruit have to do with all of this (I won't spoil all of it). I will include this tidbit that explains the structure of the paper, however:

As Ono observed, art is everywhere. But there’s still more of it in some places than others. Unfortunately, legal scholarship usually contains very little art. Or at least, legal scholarship has a hard time seeing itself as an art form. It’s a shame because legal scholarship is as good a medium as any for art—especially conceptual art. After all, every genre has aesthetic qualities, even legal scholarship. If it’s a struggle to make legal scholarship aesthetically pleasing, all the better! Artists have always had to struggle, and there’s no own like a self-own. What’s more, legal scholarship is all about concepts. Usually the concepts are boring and scholastic, but they still matter. There are a lot of mediocre genres. Even if legal scholarship is a mediocre genre, it’s entitled to a little representation, isn’t it, and a little chance? We can’t have only painting, sculpture, and music. Conceptual art is promiscuous. It loves the genre that loves it back.

So, this article is an homage to Ono’s Grapefruit in the genre of legal scholarship. It consists of a number of “pieces” intended to encourage reflection on the nature and practice of legal scholarship. Of course, it reflects my own particular interests, inter alia discussing the concept of plagiarism, especially as articulated in the context of legal scholarship.

Notably, this is the first article in which I have (intentionally) plagiarized anything. At a certain point, you just have to jump in. For what it’s worth, a considerable part of the plagiarism in this article is self-plagiarism, which is really just plagiarism for plagiarists without the courage of their convictions. But many of the pieces in this article plagiarize other legal scholars. Like any self-respecting plagiarist, I only plagiarized the legal scholars I love the very most. See if you can spot their work. I hope I added something to it.

And then, within the piece, are a long list of "instructions" regarding various topics, including eight such instructions regarding plagiarism -- a topic that Frye has also written about extensively, calling into question why plagiarism is considered "the ultimate academic crime," and suggests that we rethink plagiarism entirely. As he writes in that paper:

Plagiarism norms are primarily an extralegal, inefficient, and illegitimate way for academics to claim property rights in the public domain. Copyright cannot and should not protect ideas, and plagiarism norms are simply copyright by other means. Attributing ideas should be voluntary, not mandatory. Academics should provide citations because they are helpful to readers, not because they are an obligatory form of obeisance. We should encourage people to attribute ideas whenever helpful and appropriate, but we should refuse to recognize the self-interested and unreasonable claims of those who seek to enforce plagiarism norms for their own sake and in their own interests.

Earlier this year, Frye began exploring NFTs, and (among other things) how they fit in under existing law -- specifically securities law. He has similarly published another paper, entitled an SEC No-Action Letter Request, in which he explores whether or not selling shares of ownership in the No-Action Letter Request itself is an illegal unregistered security. In order to sell those shares, he has created NFTs associated with the No-Action letter.

Separately, Frye created a bunch of NFTs out of the different "instructions" in the Deodand paper, including the Plagiarism Pieces. This resulted in Josh Lamel, from Insight Public Affairs suggesting that someone should sell plagiarized NFTs of Frye's NFTs. We have now stepped up to do so.

Because it is plagiarism, and a key point that Frye highlights is that you shouldn't need to ask for permission, we have not done so -- though it certainly appears that Frye endorses this plagiarism, that's really neither here nor there.

We've written plenty about how people overreact to plagiarism in the past, and have noted that plagiarism can often lead to even greater creativity. Often, good plagiarism takes one work and does something else to it, to make it better, or more widely known. We believe we have done that with Frye's work. His paper, and his NFTs, were fairly boring, typical law review typeface of black letters on a white background. While using his text, we have spiced up all eight of the plagiarism pieces, adding color and (most importantly) animation. Each of the eight NFTs is different, but they are currently being auctioned off, so feel free to own a piece of conceptual art / legal scholarship / plagiarized / case study about plagiarism, ownership, digital ownership and more. Again, the auction will remain live through next Thursday evening.

Filed Under: abundance, brian frye, conceptual art, culture, nfts, ownership, plagiarism, scarcity

'Free' Game Making $300 Million Per Month? But I Thought You Can't Make Money On Free...

from the old-school dept

For most of the first decade of the millennium, we would post over and over again about content business models and how "free" content makes a ton of sense as a component of a business model. And yet, people in the legacy entertainment industry would laugh and laugh, and talk about how "you can't make money on free." You even had folks who claimed that if you gave away anything for free it proved you had "no fucking clue" about how to run a business. My favorite may have been Doug Morris, who was boss of Universal Music and then Sony Music, insisting that there was no way anyone in the recording business could make money on "free."

These days, that's all looking pretty silly, but just to drive home the point: the insanely popular free video game Fortnite made $318 million last month. Not last year. Last month. And it's free. Of course, as we've always said, the whole point of free is not that free is the business model, but that free is a part of the business model. And that's exactly how Fortnight works.

Even better, all of that revenue comes from nonessential in-app purchases. You don't ever need to pay any money to play Fortnite. And, if we went by what the entertainment industry "experts" from years past would tell you, if that's the case no one will ever pay. Except, obviously, they are, to the tune of over $300 million per month. Why? Because, they're still buying an actual scarcity: mainly different skins or dances/moves that let them show off. In other words: fashion. Something to make themselves distinct -- to stand out. That is a scarcity. Even in a digital world.

So, Fortnite is yet another example of how someone is taking a digital property, and leveraging free to attract a massive audience, and then figuring out ways to charge for a scarcity that people actually want to buy. And people are paying like crazy. So, can we put to rest the idea that you can't make money off of free yet?

Filed Under: business models, differentiation, economics, fortnite, free, free to play, scarcity

Rap Artists Wu-Tang Clan Fight Infinite Goods By Selling One Copy Of Their Next Album... For $1 Million

from the if-you've-got-the-front-rent,-who-cares-about-the-back? dept

There's a lot of discussion at this site about new business models for artists to combat the tendency of infinite goods (digital files) to bring the market price down to as near zero as possible. Seminal rap act Wu-Tang Clan has gone in the opposite direction. Instead of operating around infinite goods, the group is opting to release its next album in an extremely finite quantity.

Somewhere on the outskirts of Marrakech, Morocco, inside a vault housed beneath the shadow of the Atlas Mountains, there sits an engraved silver-and-nickel box with the potential to spawn a shift in the way music is consumed and monetized.

The lustrous container was handcrafted over the course of three months by British-Moroccan artist Yahya, whose works have been commissioned by royal families and business leaders around the world. Soon, it will contain a different sort of art piece: the Wu-Tang Clan’s double-album The Wu – Once Upon A Time In Shaolin, recorded in secret over the past few years.

Like the work of a master Impressionist, it will truly be one-of-a-kind—in lieu of a traditional major label or independent launch, the iconic hip-hop collective will make and sell just one copy of the album. And similar to a Monet or a Degas, the price tag will be a multimillion-dollar figure.

Rather than allow the market to decide how much the album is worth, the Wu-Tang Clan has circumvented that process by predetermining its going price (which eliminates a whole lot of the "market"). But it's not a terrible idea, provided it's able to sell this literally one-of-a-kind album. Securing $1 million up front (and without a label) for an unheard album will allow the group to recoup its costs in short order, rather than having to rely on a slower flow of income. It may work for a group that has achieved nearly legendary status over the course of its career, but it obviously isn't the sort of thing that would work for many recording artists.

But this isn't the only revenue stream. The Clan has another offering that will put even more money in its pockets, but it's also one that could possibly undermine the million-dollar sale.

According to RZA and the album’s main producer Tarik “Cilvaringz” Azzougarh, a Morocco-based part of Wu-Tang’s extended family, the plan is to first take Once Upon A Time In Shaolin on a “tour” through museums, galleries, festivals and the like. Just like a high-profile exhibit at a major institution, there will be a cost to attend, likely in the $30-$50 range.

Visitors will go through heavy security to ensure that recording devices aren’t smuggled in; as an extra precaution, they’ll likely have to listen to the 128-minute album’s 31 songs on headphones provided by the venue. As Cilvaringz puts it: “One leak of this thing nullifies the entire concept.”

The group says this is an attempt at "reconsidering music as art." That's the kind of statement that punches the right buttons for creators who feel the internet has robbed them of the ability to make a living, but it's ultimately as substance-free as any other justification for charging a steep price for infinite goods. This is the sort of statement you can make when a $1 million payoff assures you of success even without album sales. This won't force a reconsideration of music by the general public. This will only put the new album into the realm of the unattainable, which makes it a luxury good, rather than an artistic statement.

But all in all, it's not a terrible plan. If the album leaks beforehand, some well-heeled fan may still pick up the tab to get the only legitimate copy of this album, along with its handcrafted storage case. If, by some miracle, the album is purchased and never leaks, someone out there will own the best-kept musical secret of all time. But chances are, the album will make its way to the internet eventually, even if leaks are prevented. People love sharing art, even if they paid $1 million for it.

Filed Under: art, music, scarcity, wu-tang clan

DailyDirt: Food Shortages

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

It's strange to know that the world actually produces enough food to feed everyone, but losses in distribution and economic issues prevent everyone from eating. There are estimates that the world produces enough food to feed the world's population about 2-3 times over, and about half of the global food supply is wasted. Still, nearly a billion people are undernourished. If you haven't lost your appetite yet, here are just a few more factoids on the topic of food shortages.

• Monsoons in India have created a shortage of onions in a country that loves this vegetable. It's a serious problem, and thieves have started targeting trucks carrying onions due to the 500% increase in the price of these tear-inducing crops. [url]
• Water scarcity could become a more serious global issue as some forecasts say the world will need to find the equivalent of 20 Nile Rivers in order to keep up with the global food demand in 2025. Currently, about 3,800 cubic km (910 cubic miles) of fresh water from lakes/rivers are needed each year, and if the world adds another billion people to the global population, we'll need to find another 1,000 cubic km (240 cubic miles) of water. [url]
• The great rice crisis of 2008 was a disaster for many people in Asia -- even though many rice farmers were experiencing record harvests that year. The price of rice skyrocketed when several countries started limiting their rice exports, but luckily, a million and a half tons of high-quality rice was just sitting in Japan which could be used to re-adjust the markets. Interestingly, that stockpile of rice didn't actually need to go anywhere to stabilize the rice market, and the simple announcement that there was a huge amount of rice available calmed fears and ended the crisis. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: food, food waste, onions, rice, rice crisis, scarcity, shortage, water

Turns Out That The iPad Won't Magically Bring Back Scarcity For Magazines

from the shocking,-i-know dept

Back in 2010, we suggested that the mad dash by various publications to build fee-based iPad apps was completely misguided, reminiscent of the belief in the 90s that publications could sell CD-ROM versions of their magazines. As we noted, there's nothing that special about the iPad format that takes away the natural abundance of the internet, and pretending that it was really any different than a portal to the wider internet with all its options was a fool's errand. In particular, we called out Rupert Murdoch's obsession with creating an iPad-only publication. In fact, we were confused why all the publishers investing so much in apps didn't put that same sort of effort into improving the features on their websites. A few months ago, the editor-in-chief and publisher of MIT's Tech Review more or less made the same point, saying that the future was on the web, betting on HTML 5 to make the site "look great on a laptop or desktop, tablet or smartphone" and then killing off the apps it had developed.

While others aren't going that far, there's more and more evidence that betting on apps was, in fact, the exact mistake that we predicted. Mathew Ingram summarizes how both The Huffington Post and Murdoch's The Daily have failed with their fee-based iPad app strategy. He makes the same basic point that a winner of our "most insightful comment" (by Robert Weller) made recently: that people get their news from lots of sources, so paying for a bunch of apps just doesn't make sense. In fact, it takes away from the value. As Ingram notes:

Whether media companies like it or not (and they mostly don’t), much of the news and other content we consume now comes via links shared through Twitter and Facebook and other networks, or through old-fashioned aggregators — such as Yahoo News or Google News — and newer ones like Flipboard and Zite and Prismatic that are tailored to mobile devices and a socially-driven news experience. Compared to that kind of model, a dedicated app from a magazine or a newspaper looks much less interesting, since by design it contains content from only a single outlet, and it usually doesn’t contain helpful things like links.

What he's basically saying is that the publishers focusing on apps are trying to create artificial scarcity by building digital silos. But that actually takes value away from those publications. People interact with the news in all sorts of ways that go way beyond "reading." But individual apps often make that more difficult. It involves extra effort (and cost) while providing less benefit. All because publishers are looking for something (anything!) that resembles some fencing so they can build a gate and go back to pretending they're in the gatekeeper business.

Hopefully publishers will finally stop looking to recreate the past by building artificial walls, and start looking at ways to make money that embrace the internet and what it enables.

Filed Under: apps, business models, economics, magazines, newspapers, scarcity, thedaily, web
Companies: aol, news corp.

Getting It: In A World Of Digital Abundance, Sell The Scarcities

from the dickens-of-a-good-idea dept

A recurrent refrain from the copyright industries is that you can't make money from digital goods if they are freely available online. To which Techdirt has been pointing out for years that not only are there many ways of doing precisely that, but lots of people are already coining it as a result. One of the Guardian's columnists has noticed one of them - that in a world of digital abundance, you can make money by selling associated scarcities:

Earnings from recordings have been plummeting for a decade, while from live they are rising ever faster. Warner Brothers release albums free online to publicise forthcoming concerts. In Britain HMV is closing 40 shops while tickets for a Rihanna concert can cost �330 [$500], and for Coldplay �180 [$280]. A seat for Madonna is more expensive than her entire recorded output. A top American performer would reckon to earn between 80% and 90% of revenue from live performance. In the US alone, touring revenue that grossed $1bn in 1995 rose to $4.6bn last year.

The article then goes on to list other manifestations of this trend, such as Tony Blair's $160,000 fee for a speech "in the flesh"; a doubling of attendances at museums and galleries; 90% audience levels at the UK's National Theatre and Royal Shakespeare Company; and the fact that even "humble" authors find "appearances at literary festivals (those that pay) can compensate for dwindling book advances and, in the case of poets, eroding copyrights."

But one of the most telling examples is the following:

Performers such as Stephen Fry have taken to reading their books in public, Dickens-style

Dickens undertook his American reading tours in part because piracy of his works was rampant there, so he made little money directly from the many published copies. But amidst this unwelcome abundance, he was still able to sell the ultimate scarcity � his presence � to earn handsomely from the reputation his pirated works created.

The same is true for countless other writers, musicians and artists before Dickens, who lived when there was little or no copyright, and whose works could thus be copied freely. In other words, people have been using abundance to sell scarcity not just for years, but for centuries. Maybe it's time today's copyright industries got the message.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: abundance, business models, economics, scarcity