Topic: License on the block chain - page 2. (Read 2762 times)
If you have a purse full of coins and a wallet stuffed with dollar bills, do you need to go through complicated copyright arguments to set precedence for ownership?
The problem with your scheme is that none of it is true. The key is not copyrighted, nor copyrightable, and there is no performance, not at signing, nor when the transaction is broadcast, nor when the transaction is packed into a block. On top of that, keyholders don't modify the block chain, miners do. Oh, and there is no block chain.
By your logic, which is technically exact, Bitcoins are not property nor can they be property. Which is the other side of the argument and I completely respect that.
I'm still interested in trying to establish property rights using existing precedence. The miners are definitely a problem for my model so far. I'll try and work your other points in. Signing and broadcasting seem like a good candidate for "performance" as encrypted video broadcasts might provide precedence.
Not sure I understand "there is no block chain" tho.
Thanks for your input.
Again, relevance? Why would it be desirable to assert copyright claims to the blockchain?
Think of physical experiment, like Galileo using rolling balls on a track to invalidate the Aristotelian theory of motion. Galileo could claim copyright to his notes recording the motions, but it'd be ridiculous to claim copyright on the actual movement of the rolling balls. That's what you're trying to do with “copyright of the blockchain.” If you build a database on top of the blockchain with associated metadata, that'd be different. Blockchain.info holds copyright to their database with receiving-time and forwarded-by information on transactions. But the blockchain is not a record of physical events, it is those events. It's not copyrightable.
Think of physical experiment, like Galileo using rolling balls on a track to invalidate the Aristotelian theory of motion. Galileo could claim copyright to his notes recording the motions, but it'd be ridiculous to claim copyright on the actual movement of the rolling balls. That's what you're trying to do with “copyright of the blockchain.” If you build a database on top of the blockchain with associated metadata, that'd be different. Blockchain.info holds copyright to their database with receiving-time and forwarded-by information on transactions. But the blockchain is not a record of physical events, it is those events. It's not copyrightable.
You point is valid, data itself is not copyrightable. That I understand.
I'm trying to eliminate a layer of ambiguity for the right to modify an intangible asset using current copyright law (in the U.S. and broken as the law may be).
In the model I'm trying to build, the private key is copyrighted by an individual. The "performance" of that individuals work is modifying the block chain with an entry. I believe it much easier to make this case if the property rights of the block chain are explicitly defined somewhere.
My goal is to establish that private key is a "right to spend" using copyright law. Then I can defend the "right to spend" using the same law as a valuable property right regardless of the intangible nature of the assets it represents.
That's the relevance.
The problem with your scheme is that none of it is true. The key is not copyrighted, nor copyrightable, and there is no performance, not at signing, nor when the transaction is broadcast, nor when the transaction is packed into a block. On top of that, keyholders don't modify the block chain, miners do. Oh, and there is no block chain.
The very question presupposes that a license is necessary. How about we think about it from the other side.
Who could make some sort of claim to the blockchain?
What sort of claim could they make?
And the third question, what would a judge think about such a claim when it was revealed that the content of the claim was intentionally uploaded, by the claimant, to a network designed with the sole function of widely distributing such things?
Who could make some sort of claim to the blockchain?
What sort of claim could they make?
And the third question, what would a judge think about such a claim when it was revealed that the content of the claim was intentionally uploaded, by the claimant, to a network designed with the sole function of widely distributing such things?
It's not necessary, it just makes the chain I'm building easier to establish. (i.e. the "right to spend" is protected by copyright law and is a valuable right).
I think anyone could make a claim on the block chain if they filed it. There is only one item I could find with the word Bitcoin that has a registered copyright and its an episode of The Good Wife Episode #313 by CBS "Bitcoin For Dummies".
They could claim authorship and first publication of collection of facts in a fixed tangible form that requires creativity to establish. (The data and indexes on a DVD). Then start a class action lawsuit against anyone using Bitcoin they decided to name for wrongfully distributing their intellectual property.
I think the judge throws it out after years of churning through the court system. Holding the legal status of the "right to spend" hostage for years.
I also believe that adding a provision to the software license can avoid this theoretical stupidity. It just has to say that the data it outputs it committed to the public domain.
Again, relevance? Why would it be desirable to assert copyright claims to the blockchain?
Think of physical experiment, like Galileo using rolling balls on a track to invalidate the Aristotelian theory of motion. Galileo could claim copyright to his notes recording the motions, but it'd be ridiculous to claim copyright on the actual movement of the rolling balls. That's what you're trying to do with “copyright of the blockchain.” If you build a database on top of the blockchain with associated metadata, that'd be different. Blockchain.info holds copyright to their database with receiving-time and forwarded-by information on transactions. But the blockchain is not a record of physical events, it is those events. It's not copyrightable.
Think of physical experiment, like Galileo using rolling balls on a track to invalidate the Aristotelian theory of motion. Galileo could claim copyright to his notes recording the motions, but it'd be ridiculous to claim copyright on the actual movement of the rolling balls. That's what you're trying to do with “copyright of the blockchain.” If you build a database on top of the blockchain with associated metadata, that'd be different. Blockchain.info holds copyright to their database with receiving-time and forwarded-by information on transactions. But the blockchain is not a record of physical events, it is those events. It's not copyrightable.
You point is valid, data itself is not copyrightable. That I understand.
I'm trying to eliminate a layer of ambiguity for the right to modify an intangible asset using current copyright law (in the U.S. and broken as the law may be).
In the model I'm trying to build, the private key is copyrighted by an individual. The "performance" of that individuals work is modifying the block chain with an entry. I believe it much easier to make this case if the property rights of the block chain are explicitly defined somewhere.
My goal is to establish that private key is a "right to spend" using copyright law. Then I can defend the "right to spend" using the same law as a valuable property right regardless of the intangible nature of the assets it represents.
That's the relevance.
Where did Satoshi host the original blockchain downloads, if there were any?
Huh? There were none. The blockchain bootstraps itself from the genesis block and peers on the network.
The very question presupposes that a license is necessary. How about we think about it from the other side.
Who could make some sort of claim to the blockchain?
What sort of claim could they make?
And the third question, what would a judge think about such a claim when it was revealed that the content of the claim was intentionally uploaded, by the claimant, to a network designed with the sole function of widely distributing such things?
Who could make some sort of claim to the blockchain?
What sort of claim could they make?
And the third question, what would a judge think about such a claim when it was revealed that the content of the claim was intentionally uploaded, by the claimant, to a network designed with the sole function of widely distributing such things?
My understanding is that a database is protectable by copyright in the EU.
The blockchain is not a database. Relevance?As a personal project, I'm trying to build a chain of legal precedence for using copyright law as a legal foundation for Bitcoin. So I'm trying to understand the source, data, and application in that context.
This started from a thread in the Legal forum and led me to questions for the developers covering basic aspects of how everything is licensed or protected. I understand that the source is MIT/X11, but I'm unsure what applies to the data. Clearly they are public and you can copy them, but does anything specifically grant that right?
Think of physical experiment, like Galileo using rolling balls on a track to invalidate the Aristotelian theory of motion. Galileo could claim copyright to his notes recording the motions, but it'd be ridiculous to claim copyright on the actual movement of the rolling balls. That's what you're trying to do with “copyright of the blockchain.” If you build a database on top of the blockchain with associated metadata, that'd be different. Blockchain.info holds copyright to their database with receiving-time and forwarded-by information on transactions. But the blockchain is not a record of physical events, it is those events. It's not copyrightable.
Where did Satoshi host the original blockchain downloads, if there were any?
For example, a stub chain that included the genesis block?
I ask because some commonly used sites require certain types of license for their free to use options.
Sourceforge, for example, if an author uploads there, at least as a free user, they would be in violation of terms if their upload was not covered by a license that falls into some range of what type of license it is, wouldn't they?
On the other hand possibly uploading copyright images you have permission to use alongside your free open source code might not actually require you to have those images open-sourced prior to uploading them.
So this is basically a grasping at straws attempt to seek author intent in author actions.
-MarkM-
For example, a stub chain that included the genesis block?
I ask because some commonly used sites require certain types of license for their free to use options.
Sourceforge, for example, if an author uploads there, at least as a free user, they would be in violation of terms if their upload was not covered by a license that falls into some range of what type of license it is, wouldn't they?
On the other hand possibly uploading copyright images you have permission to use alongside your free open source code might not actually require you to have those images open-sourced prior to uploading them.
So this is basically a grasping at straws attempt to seek author intent in author actions.
-MarkM-
My understanding is that a database is protectable by copyright in the EU.
The blockchain is not a database. Relevance?As a personal project, I'm trying to build a chain of legal precedence for using copyright law as a legal foundation for Bitcoin. So I'm trying to understand the source, data, and application in that context.
This started from a thread in the Legal forum and led me to questions for the developers covering basic aspects of how everything is licensed or protected. I understand that the source is MIT/X11, but I'm unsure what applies to the data. Clearly they are public and you can copy them, but does anything specifically grant that right?
My understanding is that a database is protectable by copyright in the EU.
The blockchain is not a database. Relevance? The genesis block is presumably BSD-licensed, as it is part of the code? I am not a lawyer.
Good call. The genesis block is in main.cpp as both a comment and a snippet of code. So that much has an MIT/X11 license in source form.
So thats something. I can't find anything else that assigns any protection to the .dat files though.
Thanks.
The genesis block is presumably BSD-licensed, as it is part of the code? I am not a lawyer.
Or at least, certain parts of it, such parts as are part of the code, are? I am still not a lawyer.
However that license does not protect it the way a GPL license would have. Still not a lawyer.
Was that deliberate foresight? Someone wanted to ensure they could sieze control of it back at some later date or something so deliberately avoided ensuring all derivative works are covered by the same license? I suppose I could consider being a plaintiff... (Bait and switch, maybe? or is BSD expressly designed to make bait-and-switch perfectly acceptable and the victim's fault for not fully comprehending the implications of the choice of license?)
-MarkM-
Or at least, certain parts of it, such parts as are part of the code, are? I am still not a lawyer.
However that license does not protect it the way a GPL license would have. Still not a lawyer.
Was that deliberate foresight? Someone wanted to ensure they could sieze control of it back at some later date or something so deliberately avoided ensuring all derivative works are covered by the same license? I suppose I could consider being a plaintiff... (Bait and switch, maybe? or is BSD expressly designed to make bait-and-switch perfectly acceptable and the victim's fault for not fully comprehending the implications of the choice of license?)
-MarkM-
License? Mere collections of facts are not subject to copyright laws anywhere in the world that I'm aware of.
My understanding is that a database is protectable by copyright in the EU. Also, if a collection of facts is a complication requiring creativity, it is copyrightable in the US.
I was just wondering if the developers already applied some legal protection for the "openness" of the block chain. In the form of licensing, copyright, etc.
Thanks.
License? Mere collections of facts are not subject to copyright laws anywhere in the world that I'm aware of.
Is there an existing license on the block chain that puts it in the public domain?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Jump to: