Digital Property Cycles
The present downturn in non-fungible token ("NFT") markets is no cause for immediate alarm. There have been multiple cycles in both the legal and media focus on digital intangible property, and these cycles will recur. The cycles are easily explainable: demand for intangible property is co...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Washington and Lee law review 2023-07, Vol.80 (3), p.1115-1136 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1136 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 1115 |
container_title | Washington and Lee law review |
container_volume | 80 |
creator | Fairfield, Joshua |
description | The present downturn in non-fungible token ("NFT") markets is no cause for immediate alarm. There have been multiple cycles in both the legal and media focus on digital intangible property, and these cycles will recur. The cycles are easily explainable: demand for intangible property is constant, even increasing. The legal regimes governing ownership of these assets are unstable and poorly suited to satisfying the preferences of buyers and sellers. The combination of demand and poor legal regulation gives rise to the climate of fraud that has come to characterize NFTs, but it has nothing to do with the value of the technology, the legitimacy of the demand to own intangible property, or even the value of the assets themselves. Rather, fraud and exploitation are entirely avoidable and predictable outcomes of a situation in which buyers and sellers value assets highly but enjoy little to no protection of their interest in their investment. The solution is not more public service announcements indicating that all NFTs are fraudulent; this is neither true nor to the point. Rather, the only solution is to vindicate investor and purchaser rights in intangible property, so that the legitimate demand for intangible property is channeled into the regular economy instead of gray markets. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2885624957</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2885624957</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_28856249573</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYuA0tDQx0jUzM7VgYeA0MDAx1jUwMTPmYOAqLs4yMDAwNTI252QQd8lMzyxJzFEIKMovSC0qqVRwrkzOSS3mYWBNS8wpTuWF0twMym6uIc4eugVF-YWlqcUl8Vn5pUV5QKl4IwsLUzMjE0tTc2PiVAEA7RYrEA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2885624957</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Digital Property Cycles</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Fairfield, Joshua</creator><creatorcontrib>Fairfield, Joshua</creatorcontrib><description>The present downturn in non-fungible token ("NFT") markets is no cause for immediate alarm. There have been multiple cycles in both the legal and media focus on digital intangible property, and these cycles will recur. The cycles are easily explainable: demand for intangible property is constant, even increasing. The legal regimes governing ownership of these assets are unstable and poorly suited to satisfying the preferences of buyers and sellers. The combination of demand and poor legal regulation gives rise to the climate of fraud that has come to characterize NFTs, but it has nothing to do with the value of the technology, the legitimacy of the demand to own intangible property, or even the value of the assets themselves. Rather, fraud and exploitation are entirely avoidable and predictable outcomes of a situation in which buyers and sellers value assets highly but enjoy little to no protection of their interest in their investment. The solution is not more public service announcements indicating that all NFTs are fraudulent; this is neither true nor to the point. Rather, the only solution is to vindicate investor and purchaser rights in intangible property, so that the legitimate demand for intangible property is channeled into the regular economy instead of gray markets.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-0463</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1942-6658</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Lexington: Washington & Lee University, School of Law</publisher><subject>Fraud ; Intangible assets ; Investment ; Investors ; Non-fungible tokens</subject><ispartof>Washington and Lee law review, 2023-07, Vol.80 (3), p.1115-1136</ispartof><rights>Copyright Washington & Lee University, School of Law Summer 2023</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fairfield, Joshua</creatorcontrib><title>Digital Property Cycles</title><title>Washington and Lee law review</title><description>The present downturn in non-fungible token ("NFT") markets is no cause for immediate alarm. There have been multiple cycles in both the legal and media focus on digital intangible property, and these cycles will recur. The cycles are easily explainable: demand for intangible property is constant, even increasing. The legal regimes governing ownership of these assets are unstable and poorly suited to satisfying the preferences of buyers and sellers. The combination of demand and poor legal regulation gives rise to the climate of fraud that has come to characterize NFTs, but it has nothing to do with the value of the technology, the legitimacy of the demand to own intangible property, or even the value of the assets themselves. Rather, fraud and exploitation are entirely avoidable and predictable outcomes of a situation in which buyers and sellers value assets highly but enjoy little to no protection of their interest in their investment. The solution is not more public service announcements indicating that all NFTs are fraudulent; this is neither true nor to the point. Rather, the only solution is to vindicate investor and purchaser rights in intangible property, so that the legitimate demand for intangible property is channeled into the regular economy instead of gray markets.</description><subject>Fraud</subject><subject>Intangible assets</subject><subject>Investment</subject><subject>Investors</subject><subject>Non-fungible tokens</subject><issn>0043-0463</issn><issn>1942-6658</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYuA0tDQx0jUzM7VgYeA0MDAx1jUwMTPmYOAqLs4yMDAwNTI252QQd8lMzyxJzFEIKMovSC0qqVRwrkzOSS3mYWBNS8wpTuWF0twMym6uIc4eugVF-YWlqcUl8Vn5pUV5QKl4IwsLUzMjE0tTc2PiVAEA7RYrEA</recordid><startdate>20230701</startdate><enddate>20230701</enddate><creator>Fairfield, Joshua</creator><general>Washington & Lee University, School of Law</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X1</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8A9</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ANIOZ</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRAZJ</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230701</creationdate><title>Digital Property Cycles</title><author>Fairfield, Joshua</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_28856249573</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Fraud</topic><topic>Intangible assets</topic><topic>Investment</topic><topic>Investors</topic><topic>Non-fungible tokens</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fairfield, Joshua</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Accounting & Tax Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Accounting & Tax Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Washington and Lee law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fairfield, Joshua</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Digital Property Cycles</atitle><jtitle>Washington and Lee law review</jtitle><date>2023-07-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>80</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1115</spage><epage>1136</epage><pages>1115-1136</pages><issn>0043-0463</issn><eissn>1942-6658</eissn><abstract>The present downturn in non-fungible token ("NFT") markets is no cause for immediate alarm. There have been multiple cycles in both the legal and media focus on digital intangible property, and these cycles will recur. The cycles are easily explainable: demand for intangible property is constant, even increasing. The legal regimes governing ownership of these assets are unstable and poorly suited to satisfying the preferences of buyers and sellers. The combination of demand and poor legal regulation gives rise to the climate of fraud that has come to characterize NFTs, but it has nothing to do with the value of the technology, the legitimacy of the demand to own intangible property, or even the value of the assets themselves. Rather, fraud and exploitation are entirely avoidable and predictable outcomes of a situation in which buyers and sellers value assets highly but enjoy little to no protection of their interest in their investment. The solution is not more public service announcements indicating that all NFTs are fraudulent; this is neither true nor to the point. Rather, the only solution is to vindicate investor and purchaser rights in intangible property, so that the legitimate demand for intangible property is channeled into the regular economy instead of gray markets.</abstract><cop>Lexington</cop><pub>Washington & Lee University, School of Law</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0043-0463 |
ispartof | Washington and Lee law review, 2023-07, Vol.80 (3), p.1115-1136 |
issn | 0043-0463 1942-6658 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2885624957 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
subjects | Fraud Intangible assets Investment Investors Non-fungible tokens |
title | Digital Property Cycles |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T04%3A33%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Digital%20Property%20Cycles&rft.jtitle=Washington%20and%20Lee%20law%20review&rft.au=Fairfield,%20Joshua&rft.date=2023-07-01&rft.volume=80&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1115&rft.epage=1136&rft.pages=1115-1136&rft.issn=0043-0463&rft.eissn=1942-6658&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2885624957%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2885624957&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |