ARGUMENTARY ESTABLISHING THE VALUE OF FRED FOREST'S NFT The digital work "Parcelle Réseau" that I sold as a precursor under the gavel of BINOCHE

The digital work "Parcelle Réseau" that I sold as a precursor under the gavel of Ma?tre Binoche at the H?tel des ventes de Drouot on October 16, 1996 to two buyers in the form of a code (a URL) 27 years ago that gave them access to an IMAGINET server where they could view it or retrieve it, as they wished. So, without a doubt, I'm the one who first invented THE CONCEPT of NFT, since it didn't really exist until 14 years later, thanks to a man by the supposed name of Sakoto Satoshi, who established it by computer and made it unbreakable in 2008. When Fred Forest put his digital plate “Parcelle Réseau” up for sale at the H?tel des ventes at Drouot in Paris on October 16, 1996, his sale was based on a digital code that the auctioneer held out in a white envelope to the buying public. What no-one else had ever done before was to make available for sale a code that would enable those in possession of it to access the work on the web, i.e. at that very moment visible in the auction room, and at the same time, paradoxically, simultaneously visible and everywhere in the world...

This in no way changes the nature of the work - be it illustrative (material) or semantic (abstract) - only its mode of apprehension. Moreover, the note that also accompanied the code sold in the envelope, in the form of a letter addressed to future buyers, clearly attests to my complete intellectual mastery of the operation at the time. In a way, then, I can be considered to be at the origin of the NFT, having "invented the NFT" (the term "invented" taken here in its etymological sense), its concept having been duly used even before it existed in computer terms, and only from 2008, i.e. 14 years later, thanks to the ingenious Satoshi. It also has the property of making the NFT code tamper-proof. Which puts a question mark over the claim that EveryDays was the first NFT to be sold, according to the uncautious assertions of its purchaser, and at this unreasonable price? A price that some believe to have been artificially inflated by its operators for maximum media effect.

Conceptual artists value and base their work entirely on its concept, not its materiality. Moreover, once the concept has been established, they can leave the responsibility for its realization to others, provided they respect the protocol.

For my part, I took care to keep a copy as an artist's copy.? Because of the negligence of its purchasers, who, without anticipating the value that this work might later take on “Parcelle réseau”, were no longer concerned with its future, being only interested in raising funds on the back of the media success of their purchase. For my part, I focused on my intuition as an artist, corroborated by the text of the document I enclosed with the envelope containing the code. (See attached photocopy of this document) I waited until now to reveal and claim the invention I had made at the time.

The most important thing to remember here is that it was I who first put the digital work "Parcelle réseau" up for public sale in 1996, in the form of a code, whose anteriority from this point of view is unquestionable over all the NFTs produced since then... So clearly I'm the father of the NFT, contrary to what Mr Métakovan, also known as Troubadour, who bought the Beeple for the astronomical sum of 69.3 million dollars, claims. Beeple is an artist whose work I readily acknowledge for the quality of its inventiveness, which has nothing to do with the purely fictitious and manipulated value of the art market. And I'd like to end by saying that the concept of selling a coding instead of the work itself belongs to me, with a 25-year anteriority to Beeple's sale of Every Days.

(You only have to look at the video of the sale of "Parcelle réseau" to see that the object put up for sale by Ma?tre Binoche is obviously the envelope he holds in his hands containing the access code he brandishes during the auction, while the work "Parcelle Réseau" is somehow set back and marginalized on its right-hand side.To continue, the initial sale of "Parcelle réseau" on October 16, 1996 was not accompanied by a relinquishment clause, and I retained all rights to it behind my back.

After speaking to a lawyer specializing in copyright law, I learned that I had the right to sell this artist's copy, which is perfectly identical to the original of the lost work, as well as the slightly modified original, which I recently donated to the Centre Pompidou and which now hangs prominently on its walls...

So, first, I modified my artist's copy, transformed it into an NFT and donated this NFT to the Centre Pompidou for its collections of this new work drawn from the artist's copy of the work "Parcelle réseau". Until 22/1/2024, this new work is still the subject of the first exhibition of the 18 NFTs recently acquired by the Centre Pompidou. https://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2023/05/10/les-nft-du-centre-pompidou-exposes-au-c-ur-de-la-collection-permanente_6172856_3246.html

?(See my NFT in the foreground of Le Monde)

https://NFT-archeology.org

To conclude this operation, I now intend to offer for sale the artist's copy, which is identical in every respect to the lost original of "Parcelle réseau", since it is a perfect duplicate.? After transforming it into an NFT, of course. When Christie's sold Beeple's work in 2021 for the fabulous sum of $69.3 million, the buyer, the well-known Metakovan, was quick to declare that he had just acquired the first NFT and was delighted with it. Admittedly, he had acquired a digital work in the form of a process bearing the name NFT, in ignorance of an earlier sale made 25 years earlier, sold in the form of a similar concept which did not yet bear the name NFT, but which on the other hand also used the sale in the form of coding. The only difference being that, at that time, the blockchain had not yet been computerized by brilliant technicians like Satochi, so the code used for the transaction (the URL) could be violated by experienced computer scientists...

?I'm wisely waiting for art historians to give their opinion on this subject. As there are quite a few of them here on Linkedin among us, let them get in touch with me, and I thank them in advance.

?

Fred Forest

?

The digital work "Parcelle Réseau" that I sold as a precursor under the gavel of Ma?tre Binoche at the H?tel des ventes de Drouot on October 16, 1996 to two buyers in the form of a code (a URL) 27 years ago that gave them access to an IMAGINET server where they could view it or retrieve it, as they wished. So, without a doubt, I'm the one who first invented THE CONCEPT of NFT, since it didn't really exist until 14 years later, thanks to a man by the supposed name of Sakoto Satoshi, who established it by computer and made it unbreakable in 2008. When Fred Forest put his digital plate “Parcelle Réseau” up for sale at the H?tel des ventes at Drouot in Paris on October 16, 1996, his sale was based on a digital code that the auctioneer held out in a white envelope to the buying public. What no-one else had ever done before was to make available for sale a code that would enable those in possession of it to access the work on the web, i.e. at that very moment visible in the auction room, and at the same time, paradoxically, simultaneously visible and everywhere in the world... This in no way changes the nature of the work - be it illustrative (material) or semantic (abstract) - only its mode of apprehension. Moreover, the note that also accompanied the code sold in the envelope, in the form of a letter addressed to future buyers, clearly attests to my complete intellectual mastery of the operation at the time. In a way, then, I can be considered to be at the origin of the NFT, having "invented the NFT" (the term "invented" taken here in its etymological sense), its concept having been duly used even before it existed in computer terms, and only from 2008, i.e. 14 years later, thanks to the ingenious Satoshi. It also has the property of making the NFT code tamper-proof. Which puts a question mark over the claim that EveryDays was the first NFT to be sold, according to the uncautious assertions of its purchaser, and at this unreasonable price? A price that some believe to have been artificially inflated by its operators for maximum media effect.

?Conceptual artists value and base their work entirely on its concept, not its materiality. Moreover, once the concept has been established, they can leave the responsibility for its realization to others, provided they respect the protocol. For my part, I took care to keep a copy as an artist's copy.? Because of the negligence of its purchasers, who, without anticipating the value that this work might later take on “Parcelle réseau”, were no longer concerned with its future, being only interested in raising funds on the back of the media success of their purchase. For my part, I focused on my intuition as an artist, corroborated by the text of the document I enclosed with the envelope containing the code. (See attached photocopy of this document) I waited until now to reveal and claim the invention I had made at the time.

The most important thing to remember here is that it was I who first put the digital work "Parcelle réseau" up for public sale in 1996, in the form of a code, whose anteriority from this point of view is unquestionable over all the NFTs produced since then... So clearly I'm the father of the NFT, contrary to what Mr Métakovan, also known as Troubadour, who bought the Beeple for the astronomical sum of 69.3 million dollars, claims. Beeple is an artist whose work I readily acknowledge for the quality of its inventiveness, which has nothing to do with the purely fictitious and manipulated value of the art market. And I'd like to end by saying that the concept of selling a coding instead of the work itself belongs to me, with a 25-year anteriority to Beeple's sale of Every Days.

(You only have to look at the video of the sale of "Parcelle réseau" to see that the object put up for sale by Ma?tre Binoche is obviously the envelope he holds in his hands containing the

?

access code he brandishes during the auction, while the work "Parcelle Réseau" is somehow set back and marginalized on its right-hand side.

To continue, the initial sale of "Parcelle réseau" on October 16, 1996 was not accompanied by a relinquishment clause, and I retained all rights to it behind my back.

After speaking to a lawyer specializing in copyright law, I learned that I had the right to sell this artist's copy, which is perfectly identical to the original of the lost work, as well as the slightly modified original, which I recently donated to the Centre Pompidou and which now hangs prominently on its walls...

So, first, I modified my artist's copy, transformed it into an NFT and donated this NFT to the Centre Pompidou for its collections of this new work drawn from the artist's copy of the work "Parcelle réseau". Until 22/1/2024, this new work is still the subject of the first exhibition of the 18 NFTs recently acquired by the Centre Pompidou. https://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2023/05/10/les-nft-du-centre-pompidou-exposes-au-c-ur-de-la-collection-permanente_6172856_3246.html

?(See my NFT in the foreground of Le Monde)

To conclude this operation, I now intend to offer for sale the artist's copy, which is identical in every respect to the lost original of "Parcelle réseau", since it is a perfect duplicate.? After transforming it into an NFT, of course. When Christie's sold Beeple's work in 2021 for the fabulous sum of $69.3 million, the buyer, the well-known Metakovan, was quick to declare that he had just acquired the first NFT and was delighted with it. Admittedly, he had acquired a digital work in the form of a process bearing the name NFT, in ignorance of an earlier sale made 25 years earlier, sold in the form of a similar concept which did not yet bear the name NFT, but which on the other hand also used the sale in the form of coding. The only difference being that, at that time, the blockchain had not yet been computerized by brilliant technicians like Satochi, so the code used for the transaction (the URL) could be violated by experienced computer scientists...

?

I'm wisely waiting for art historians to give their opinion on this subject. As there are quite a few of them here on Linkedin among us, let them get in touch with me, and I thank them in advance.

?

Fred Forest