Have any of you received emails about having your scripts entered into a database for amateur productions from a guy named Stephen Mutuku?  Being they were sent to me, I believe they must be a scam, so I was wondering if anyone else had received one.

This is the text of the second one.  The first asked me to print, sign and scan a permission slip and email it back:

I understand that you hold the copyrights to a script titled 'WHY  ME?' originally published on simplyscripts.com.

I am creating a prototype that would test the commercial viability of amateur movies and would like to include your script in the database. The idea is people will download the available scripts and use them to create amateur movies which they will share with their friends using the app. Script owners will be entitled to a part of the revenue generated through advertising and other potential revenue sources.
Should you be willing to grant me this permission please let me know using an email confirmation.

sincerely;
Stephen Mutuku.

Yeah I got one as well. Thought it was strange, so I deleted it.

Stay Spooked!

Sean

What is there to be spooked about? The likelihood is these emails are sent en masse after a bot harvested them from this site. That also isn't anything to worry about as the intentions here do not seem malicious. The wording of the email suggests that the sender is setting up an app that will give users access to scripts they can perform in an amateur (or not) setting. It also suggests that the author of the work will be compensated through a percentage of the ad revenue generated by the app as well as perhaps through a subscription service.

Maybe it's a good idea, or maybe it isn't, but it doesn't seem malicious at this point.

I'd want a lot more info on rights, ownership etc before I went near this... also there will be no revenue from this model if only shared between friends... hard enought to get revenue from Youtube!

Quoted from AnthonyCawood I'd want a lot more info on rights, ownership etc before I went near this... also there will be no revenue from this model if only shared between friends... hard enought to get revenue from Youtube!

Precisely... and a good reason why I wouldn't go near it. The future of everything will be soon on the blockchain. All somebody has to do is come up with a new read-to-earn model, where screenwriters and other writers earn a cryptocurrency (with real-world value) for reading each other's work and reviewing it. Imagine doing what you're doing now, only you earn while you do it. The more you participate, the more you earn through a reward system. The increased interest alone in such a model will encourage to producers and even ordinary users to onboard and do the same. Being early adopters of such a model could also class you as an OG, and make you entitled to greater rewards and perhaps a rare simplyscripts NFT that everyone will want just because of the status of having it.

The future is almost here.

The mug would make a great NFT, and would never fade, or break, your ownership of it indelible on the blockchain forever. You could look at it whenever you wanted, or even sell it. It's definitely the future, I'm just not sure when it's going to happen. It may be happening already... but then, you guys would have heard of it. In a way, it already is happening, people are producing content and then that content generates revenue as and when people read it. It's not the same, though. We need simplyscripts on the blockchain. Does the mighty Don have the skills for this? Much of the source code is open source and can be used and changed to suit. I'm not at that kind of level, I'm just a guy with a passing interest who would prefer the future to happen now.

Not a fan of NFTs. Bad for the environment. And a stupid thing that should not exist. You're essentially buying a receipt for something yiou "own," but you don't actually own the actual thing itself.

As for Stephen Mutuku, I don't think I'd bother.

Stephen Mutuku emails have been deleted.  Thank you for the input!!

Quoted from ChrisBodily Not a fan of NFTs. Bad for the environment. And a stupid thing that should not exist. You're essentially buying a receipt for something yiou "own," but you don't actually own the actual thing itself.

You're thinking about Bitcoin, which takes using powerful computers to mine, or POW, which is the proof-of-work model. NFTs on Ethereum takes hardly any energy at all to create these days as ETH has moved from POW to a POS consensus, which is proof-of-stake. POS uses a tiny fraction of the energy of POW as new coins are minted or mined through people simply holding and staking ETH. I own some BTC, obviously, but my main plays are within metaverse projects these days, mainly on the ETH blockchain, WAX, and HIVE.

You're not 'essentially buying a receipt'. You are buying a digital item that you have complete ownership of. Indelible on the blockchain, forever yours, unless you trade it. When most think of NFTs they have only the brief and often sensationalized media reports they've read to go on. They gather an ignorant opinion delivered to them on a plate and they take it without any more thought needed. They believe NFTs are worthless pieces of art sold for extraordinary amounts that have now dropped substantially in value. This is true. Many celebrities, with more money than sense, invested huge amounts and some of them have lost. Many have also won, but that's by-the-by when you already have a biased opinion - it's only the losses that count.

NFTs are also used for in-game items. Let's take a popular example. In GTA, one can own apartments, cars, and weapons. If all those things were NFTs they can be easily traded between players in an NFT marketplace. If you don't play GTA, the items in that marketplace are worthless to you and have zero value. However, to the community who play the game, some of those items can be very valuable, and they'd be prepared to spend thousands on just one item.

Value is determined by the community and not by outsiders. Let's take the simplyscripts mug NFT, as an example. Once there are enough mugs in circulation, sooner or later, somebody will try to sell one, and they will put a value on it. Somebody who always really wanted one of those mugs will then see the price and decide if it's right for them. If not, one can offer what they believe it is worth and the two can barter. As more mugs become available the value of the mugs will change, it may even be that a January 2023 mug sells for more than a March 2019. Even better, you can have different levels of Mug. Gold, Mythic, Legendary, Rare, Common. So, if there will only ever be 100 Mythic mugs, but a never-ending supply of common, those Mythic Mugs are going to hold quite a bit of value to someone.

NFTs are just scratching the surface of what can be achieved by a strong community. There is also the read-to-earn model that will generate revenue simply for doing what you love. Not only will people earn while they read, but the author also earns while their work is being read. Obviously, one earns a cryptocurrency, let's call it, DON. DON should have a limited supply, let's say a maximum of 1 Billion. At first, DON will not be worth very much as the community here is quite small at the moment. In fact, I can't even guess at its value right now. Once word gets out that you can be paid for reading and being read, the community will grow. With the added incentive of earning those valuable DON tokens, we would read more. There could be a pool of tokens distributed each week. Those who read the most take a larger share of the pool. As the community grows, so does the pool. The process for this is complicated, but new tokens are minted through staking. The stakers would be us, the holders of DON. Obviously, if the tokens in circulation outnumber the community, the value will fall. As the community grows to outweigh circulation, the token price will rise. Other factors also play into it, depending on the blockchain we're on. I'd pick ETH. It's going places.

Who wouldn't want to do what they're doing now, only it be more worthwhile? NFTs are just a secondary thing that can be a lot of fun, and you'd be surprised at just how much you'd love it if you could see that others wanted it and were prepared to pay a high price to own it.

The great thing about play-to-earn models, or, in this case, read-to-earn, is the benefit provided to those in poorer countries. In many of the projects I'm invested in, people from countries like India are making a living from doing it. A few dollars to us is food for a few days to them. if such a model was implemented here, we'd have to be prepared for an influx of writers from poorer countries. I imagine a lot of AI-told stories too, lol.

I have a SS mug I can actually hold in my hands and use as a drinking vessel... And Ant has about a half dozen of them.

I don't get the allure of NFTs and thought they'd seen their day until I saw DTrump and his digital trading cards sell out. Unbelievable. I suppose there's enough gullible buyers out there to keep them going for a while but think they're a load of BS. Jmho.

As for the future of crypto currency, it remains to be seen. Just ask Sam Bankman-Fried's victims.

Edit: Just read your last Post.
I'm still sticking with the tangible stuff.

Quoted from LC I have a SS mug I can actually hold in my hands and use as a drinking vessel... And Ant has about a half dozen of them. I don't get the allure of NFTs and thought they'd seen their day until I saw DTrump and his digital trading cards sell out. Unbelievable. I suppose there's enough gullible buyers out there to keep them going for a while but think they're a load of BS. Jmho. As for the future of crypto currency, it remains to be seen. Just ask Sam Bankman-Fried's victims. Edit: Just read your last Post. I'm still sticking with the tangible stuff.

The buyers are only 'gullible' because you don't believe in the value of what they're buying. Like somebody who collects stamps. They have no value to you or me (unless you're a stamp collector) and we should fail to understand why certain stamps are worth so much money. This doesn't make the buyers of the stamps gullible, however. They simply recognise the value. Value is driven by the community involved in the project. The same is true of gold or anything else we buy.

Tangibility is something we are also very close to in terms of VR, but how long are those mugs tangible for? Even if they last your lifetime, will they last the next? With an NFT, it is forever, with ownership indelibly signed to the owner. Also, if you prefer, then the options could be there for a real-life mug, or a mystery box that has a 1 in 1000 chance of getting a Mythic Mug NFT, a 800-1 chance of a Gold, etc, etc.

Quoted from Storey_Matters The buyers are only 'gullible' because you don't believe in the value of what they're buying. Like somebody who collects stamps. They have no value to you or me (unless you're a stamp collector) and we should fail to understand why certain stamps are worth so much money. This doesn't make the buyers of the stamps gullible, however. They simply recognise the value. Value is driven by the community involved in the project. The same is true of gold or anything else we buy. Tangibility is something we are also very close to in terms of VR, but how long are those mugs tangible for? Even if they last your lifetime, will they last the next? With an NFT, it is forever, with ownership indelibly signed to the owner. Also, if you prefer, then the options could be there for a real-life mug, or a mystery box that has a 1 in 1000 chance of getting a Mythic Mug NFT, a 800-1 chance of a Gold, etc, etc.

Not exactly.....

Libby and others (myself included) don't dismiss the fact that a sector of people view NFTs as valuable.  The evidence is obvious - some do. What we don't believe is that their belief in NFT value is sustainable given the nature of the underlying asset (or lack thereof). See Tulips, Beanie Babies, etc. etc. The Jack Dorsey NFT Tweet is emblematic of that fear.

In December 2020, Jack Dorsey created an NFT out of his first-ever Twitter post. It sold for $2.9 million. Why - because someone believed it had that value. In the most recent auction for this same NFT, no one bid more than $280 for it. Why - because people's perception of value changed rapidly. That is typical when the underlying asset is garbage - a mirage.

On its face, buying an NFT can be a bit like buying an original artwork, though with digital usage rights and stored on a blockchain. You can’t, in other words, actually hold it in your hands like a poster or painting (or in your example - a stamp). THE DIFFERENCE IS - the original media object almost always remains totally accessible to anyone online—essentially rendering the whole premise of ownership and exclusivity moot.  Put another way - it is easy to understand the value of the Mona Lisa. Is it easy to understand the value of a digital photo of the Mona Lisa that anyone can view on their computer??

And even assuming you could protect rights - does a digital format for the protection of those rights really add any value to the underlying asset? e.g., Let's say the digital image of the famous Warhol painting of Monroe was offered as an NFT and that the buyer of that NFT has exclusive rights to that image (e.g., you couldn't put it on a t-shirt without paying them).  How does that add value versus just buying the rights to that painting???? That is, converting the underlying asset into digital form does not change the value of the underlying asset.

I don't know when - but all NFTs are eventually headed toward the economic trash bins of history - followed very closely by Crypto.

This is utterly fascinating.  

When I started the "Crappy Mug" thing 14 years ago, it was my intent that they could only be 'earned' through a "significant contribution to other writers on the site," namely writing a script that other writers enjoy.  One can also bequeath a mug "earned" on the site to another writer if one has already garnered too many.

As I joke, I did make them available to be purchased, but at a price so high as to discourage anyone from buying one.  

To date, not one "Crappy Mug" has been sold.  

- Don

Quoted from eldave1 Not exactly..... Libby and others (myself included) don't dismiss the fact that a sector of people view NFTs as valuable.  The evidence is obvious - some do. What we don't believe is that their belief in NFT value is sustainable given the nature of the underlying asset (or lack thereof).

They don't have a belief in value, the value is apparent and driven by market forces. You completely misunderstand what NFTs are, they're so much more than art, which is subjective. Some, in fact most NFTs in existence have utility within the community that buys them. In short, holding and utilising those NFTs can earn you money. As an example, I bought several NFTs for one game I'm playing and have already doubled my money back on earnings through using them in the game. If the game one day loses popularity, then I have lost nothing.

Quoted Text In December 2020, Jack Dorsey created an NFT out of his first-ever Twitter post. It sold for $2.9 million. Why - because someone believed it had that value. In the most recent auction for this same NFT, no one bid more than $280 for it. Why - because people's perception of value changed rapidly. That is typical when the underlying asset is garbage - a mirage.

The current bid is 65 ETH, at today's prices currently 77 Grand, or so. So, yeah, people's perceptions of value do indeed change, and one day, this NFT may turn a profit. Within this active community, if Don were to release the DON token and Mythic NFTs, of which there were only one hundred. Imagine the community far more active, full of amateur writers. All of them would love to own that Mythic mug NFT. Would you regard it as junk and give it away?

Quoted Text On its face, buying an NFT can be a bit like buying an original artwork, though with digital usage rights and stored on a blockchain. You can’t, in other words, actually hold it in your hands like a poster or painting (or in your example - a stamp).

You don't generally appreciate art with your hands. You do so with your eyes.

Quoted Text THE DIFFERENCE IS - the original media object almost always remains totally accessible to anyone online—essentially rendering the whole premise of ownership and exclusivity moot.  Put another way - it is easy to understand the value of the Mona Lisa. Is it easy to understand the value of a digital photo of the Mona Lisa that anyone can view on their computer??

I've seen plenty of Mona Lisa prints on walls... but they're not the original Mona Lisa. Making copies sell for small change and anyone can do it. The original, however, whether digital or not, will always be the original. The difference with digital is that it cannot be lost, destroyed, or stolen. I suppose it can be scammed if one is unwary, but that's it.

Quoted Text And even assuming you could protect rights - does a digital format for the protection of those rights really add any value to the underlying asset? e.g., Let's say the digital image of the famous Warhol painting of Monroe was offered as an NFT and that the buyer of that NFT has exclusive rights to that image (e.g., you couldn't put it on a t-shirt without paying them).  How does that add value versus just buying the rights to that painting???? That is, converting the underlying asset into digital form does not change the value of the underlying asset.

The NFT and the painting would be two different things. The owner of the digital image would simply own that and not any copyright as the image is not their's and basically stolen. I doubt one could buy the rights to a digitised version of Warhol's Monroe. It couldn't happen.

Quoted Text I don't know when - but all NFTs are eventually headed toward the economic trash bins of history - followed very closely by Crypto.

Maybe Mastercard, JP Morgan, and every financial institution in the world need to hear your learned opinion before regulation comes in and they lose billions of dollars. We'll have to come back to this in a couple of years and see how it's aged.