Legal Research

[dentldir]

You know my take on it.  Going the intellectual property route via copyright gets you exclusive rights to reproduce, create derivative works, distribute copies, perform the work publicly, and display the work.  (Copyright Act of 1976).

You'd have to argue that the performance is the modifying of the public domain block chain: i.e. to "Spend" the coins.

Since copyright rights are exclusive, you have an exclusive right to spend.  Which gets you to property.  Now you can draw from all manner of precedence in U.S. law for digital works being property.

[LegalEagle]

To start, you may want to learn how the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm, XOR ciphers and SHA-256 work

Welcome to the new battle-field. Learn how to use the weapons or prepare to meet your maker.

Good luck, have your library get you a copy of Dr. Vieira's Pieces of Eight. Hurry, it may take a while. But to save you some time; you are probably chasing a red herring off in the weeds with this issue.

Damn. You probably just took the fun out of witnessing a wild goose chase.


I submit that our "LegalEagle" law student should brush up on the battlefield of the monopoly of State issued fiat currencies in general. And in particular take notice that United States Federal Reserve Notes are actually a State-sanctioned monopoly issuance of a private debt note. The fact that it is a private debt note, rather than a Federal Government elastic paper money supply, allows the Federal Government of the United States to circumvent their constitutional requirement for sound money. Ostensibly there is no compulsion to use the Federal Reserve private debt notes State-sanctioned monopoly "money" (as this also would be unconstitutional), but in practice, life in the USA without using the private debt notes of the FR is difficult so the monopoly exists in effect but not in law. Competing private money supplies are also discouraged with every legal angle in the Federal Government's bag of low tricks.

http://monetaryfreedom.org/

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?471-Redemption-of-Lawful-Money-at-US-Bank

First of all, you're wrong.  Federal reserve notes are legal tender, meaning that the failure to accept them as repayment of debt results in a default on your contract, by operation of law.  So yes, there IS a compulsion to use federal reserve notes. 

Second, please don't link me to libertarian propaganda websites when you're talking about the federal government.  I'm pretty libertarian myself, but if I hear one more "9-11 WUZ AN INSIDE JOB!!1!" video I'm going to be sick.  Do some real research from real sources before you act like you know what you're talking about, or if you want people to take you seriously.

The notion that something must be State sanctioned fiat currency in order to be "money" is a very narrow view of the term.  Money is a medium of exchange.  BitCoin is (or is becoming) a medium of exchange.

The constitution does not say anything about individuals creating a private money supply.  Further, bitcoin is not a private money supply any more than Gold is.  Some states (see, e.g., Utah) have made gold legal tender.

As far as I'm concerned, you raised approximately zero legitimate questions, which is a difficult task considering that there are hundreds and hundreds of unresolved legal issues surrounding bitcoin.

[marcus_of_augustus]

You give every appearance of someone lashing out wildly when well out of there depth ... just saying.

E.g: There is not necessarily a "private key" to a bitcoin wallet, older versions of the client, that some people still run, have unencrypted wallets.

Getting all bent out of shape and abusive over links that you CHOOSE to click on is puerile ... I might recommend you go back to newbie jail.

[LegalEagle]

Out of "there" depth?  Really?  I think you're clearly the one who's out of his element here. 

I'm getting "bent out of shape" (read, resisting) your links because they're poor references, and you're plainly wrong; yet you act all condescending like I you have even the vaguest idea what you're talking about.

If you're going to act condescending, at least be arguably right...  not flat out wrong.

[sunnankar]

The fact that it is a private debt note, rather than a Federal Government elastic paper money supply, allows the Federal Government of the United States to circumvent their constitutional requirement for sound money.

First of all, you're wrong.  Federal reserve notes are legal tender ...

As far as I'm concerned, you raised approximately zero legitimate questions, which is a difficult task considering that there are hundreds and hundreds of unresolved legal issues surrounding bitcoin.

Did you miss the ginormous Constitutional issue marcus_of_augustus raised? I bolded and highlighted the relevant parts since you missed it. Sure, he gets the illegality right but the alternative he presents is wrong also so I struck through it. Here, I will make it easy for you:
 
Under what authority does Congress derive power to create law that empowers them to make Federal Reserve Notes legal tender?

[sunnankar]

Since copyright rights are exclusive, you have an exclusive right to spend.  Which gets you to property.

I think your copyright argument is far too tenuous and detached from both the spirit and intent of copyright law and the actual protections it grants.

But even accepting for the sake of argument your previous points; how do you attach a copyright to the private key that is stored in the form of a brainwallet?

You are trying to establish a property right in the private key, right?

[sunnankar]

but if I hear one more "9-11 WUZ AN INSIDE JOB!!1!" video I'm going to be sick.  Do some real research from real sources before you act like you know what you're talking about, or if you want people to take you seriously.

Really, a threadjack about 911? I did not notice any 911 videos on the site he linked to. Or are you implying that the site he linked to is not a credible and reliable source? Perhaps this is the type of format for source citation that would make for a better argument?

There are plenty of real sources like (1) the 77 scientist signatories, including many PhDs from various hard science fields, at 911 Scientists for Truth, (2) the nano-thermite evidence resulting from Prof. Neils Harrit's examination or (3) that WTC 7, a 48 story steel skyscraper and the 3rd building to collapse on 911, collapsed into its own footprint in 9 seconds. This should be plenty of evidence from real sources to raise suspicion for an objective questioner.

So likewise, perhaps you should watch (1) Dr. Vieira explain What is Constitutional Money?, (2) this interview of Dr. Vieira (particularly at 9:40 on what is legal tender), and (3) this interview of Dr. Vieira.

[dentldir]

I think your copyright argument is far too tenuous and detached from both the spirit and intent of copyright law and the actual protections it grants.

But even accepting for the sake of argument your previous points; how do you attach a copyright to the private key that is stored in the form of a brainwallet?

You are trying to establish a property right in the private key, right?

I respect that.  I am trying to build a chain of precedence that supports my argument, but its a monumental task.  I agree that the framework was not built with this in mind, but it is one that's getting worse for open source projects and open source ideals.  I'm trying to turn that on it's head.

Currently, I would say that using a brainwallet is a choice to protect your key as a trade secret.  In other words, you are giving up copyright as your method of protection when the "expression of your idea" (the private key) is destroyed and there is nothing to copy.

[LegalEagle]

Under what authority does Congress derive power to create law that empowers them to make Federal Reserve Notes legal tender?

Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. 457 (1871).  See also 31 USC § 5103.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Out of "there" depth?  Really?  I think you're clearly the one who's out of his element here.  

Go on .... I was waiting for your eloquent and erudite espousal on the effectiveness AES-256 keys used for wallet protection in Satoshi client (mathematics included) providing a basis for property rights legal arguments.

All I got was ... rant, blah, 9-11, conspiracy, libertarians in the attic, rant, blah, blah.

So I suggest you go back to school (actually to fire your teachers) and then start to unlearn your brain-washed state of what you thought you knew about money and property.

I can really do condescending if that is what you expect?

Most "LegalEagles" need to realise they are out of their depth in the new IT world, more so in the crypto-currency tech. frontier and start with a fresh mind.

We come to steal your lunch, get used to it. Or sharpen up.

Edit :

Federal reserve notes are legal tender, meaning that the failure to accept them as repayment of debt results in a default on your contract, by operation of law.  So yes, there IS a compulsion to use federal reserve notes.

Actually, this is wrong (far be it from me to tell you how to do lawyering) but contracts can be done in any currency trading parties choose, so there is no compulsion just an implied contractual arrangement that you are using legal tender (which happen to be private FR debt notes) when it is not explicitly stated in a contract otherwise. Just having a SSN implies an unwritten contract to use FRN private debt notes .... this is how they get around the constitution by using contract law (implied consent to contract when choosing to be paid in "legal tender" etc, etc) and the body of contractual law surrounding private debt notes.

[LegalEagle]

The problem with what you're saying is that you're vastly overestimating how much the mechanics of bitcoin matter in the attachment of property rights.  They only matter to a very small degree.

Also, I know much more about money and property than you do.  I know the actual law, you know little to nothing.  From what I gather, all you know is some crap argument you found on wikipedia about how the fed reserve is unconstitutional blah blah blah.  That libertarian pipe-dream is just that: a pipe-dream.  While you and I might agree that's how it should be, the United States Supreme Court does not, and they are the only ones that matter unless you're talking about a constitutional amendment.

You cited an internet forum as a reference, for god's sake. 

It would appear to me that the trolls that have ascended on this thread care more about post-count than actual facts.  You have no idea what you're talking about, have raised exactly zero legitimate issues, and are in over your head.

[2112]

unless you're talking about a constitutional amendment.

or revolution.

This time it is the geek that shall inherit the Earth.

[LegalEagle]

Edit :

Federal reserve notes are legal tender, meaning that the failure to accept them as repayment of debt results in a default on your contract, by operation of law.  So yes, there IS a compulsion to use federal reserve notes.

Actually, this is wrong (far be it from me to tell you how to do lawyering) but contracts can be done in any currency trading parties choose, so there is no compulsion just an implied contractual arrangement that you are using legal tender (which happen to be private FR debt notes) when it is not explicitly stated in a contract otherwise. Just having a SSN implies an unwritten contract to use FRN private debt notes .... this is how they get around the constitution by using contract law (implied consent to contract when choosing to be paid in "legal tender" etc, etc) and the body of contractual law surrounding private debt notes.

Legal tender laws don't apply to goods and services.  They mainly apply to pure loans.  There is no legal obligation to accept cash for goods and services, but there is one to accept it as repayment for a loan (as distinguished from sale on credit).  However, given the prevalence and necessity of loans for almost any kind of commercial enterprise, there is definitely a compulsion to use federal reserve notes.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Edit :

Federal reserve notes are legal tender, meaning that the failure to accept them as repayment of debt results in a default on your contract, by operation of law.  So yes, there IS a compulsion to use federal reserve notes.

Actually, this is wrong (far be it from me to tell you how to do lawyering) but contracts can be done in any currency trading parties choose, so there is no compulsion just an implied contractual arrangement that you are using legal tender (which happen to be private FR debt notes) when it is not explicitly stated in a contract otherwise. Just having a SSN implies an unwritten contract to use FRN private debt notes .... this is how they get around the constitution by using contract law (implied consent to contract when choosing to be paid in "legal tender" etc, etc) and the body of contractual law surrounding private debt notes.

Legal tender laws don't apply to goods and services.  They mainly apply to pure loans.  There is no legal obligation to accept cash for goods and services, but there is one to accept it as repayment for a loan (as distinguished from sale on credit).  However, given the prevalence and necessity of loans for almost any kind of commercial enterprise, there is definitely a compulsion to use federal reserve notes.

I think you successfully argued against compulsion there .... what would I know though, eh?

[marcus_of_augustus]

You cited an internet forum as a reference, for god's sake. 

I did nothing of the sort. I merely pasted some links at the end of my comment. You've assumed they were even tangentially related, which they must be because you have just argued against it, as if they are relevant.

Anyway, you are here picking brains for free for your self-glorification paper (or was it truly edification?), so what do you expect a free ride full of willing consultants?

The problem with what you're saying is that you're vastly overestimating how much the mechanics of bitcoin matter in the attachment of property rights.  They only matter to a very small degree.

The mechanics of bitcoin do matter, why else are you asking about them? It is ignorant to think you can write intelligently about a topic without knowing anything about it, but there you go, that's the legal profession for you these days I suppose.

I thought I already warned you to stay away from the property right lines of reasoning, they are all wild goose chases ... but fine run up those blind alleys if you insist, report back for our amusement.

The monetary freedom and constitutional issues are much more interesting and relevant, given that you seem to be choosing to remain ignorant and resistant to learning about the mechanics of the cryptography involved and how it pertains to ownership, possession and the like.

[blakdawg]

Copyright is a red herring - it exists (in the US specifically, and generally, internationally) to protect creative/artistic expression. Short phrases (such as titles of books/songs/movies/etc) cannot be copyrighted, nor can bare facts (e.g., "The Washington Senators won the last game in the World Series by a score of 5-4".)

Further, there are a number of "fair use" exceptions which allow limited use of copyrighted works without the copyright holder's permission.

Trade secret is also not a great match - it protects confidential information/processes used in the conduct of a trade or business which confer a competitive advantage. It's not at all clear to me that the average person using BTC as a medium of exchange is engaged in a trade or business (they might be - but if I buy a cup of coffee, for my own consumption, with BTC, that doesn't sound to me like I'm engaged in a business) or that the use of a particular private key or keypair confers a competitive advantage.

I am not saying there are no property rights in BTC, but I don't think they're going to come from copyright or trade secret.

[markm]

Could the blockchain possibly be regarded as a kind of ever-extending, massively multi-party [Ricardian?] Contract?

As in some ways that seems to be basically what it is, save possibly for the notable lack of human-language clauses directly included in the blockchain as distinct from possibly being included by reference, context or implication?

Such a view might permit the signatures / keys stuff to be relegated to the matter of the laws regarding the signing of documents using crypto keys, leaving the blockchain as primarily such a document or a collection of such documents, possibly even spoffing off the verification of the order in which various clauses, subdocuments, contracts or subcontracts contained therein, along with the associated Byzantine Generals solving stuff, to laws around the validating and/or notarising of contracts.

If all of that works, we might be left with a simple verified, signed [Ricardian?] contract or collection/sequence of such contracts.

-MarkM-

[dentldir]

Copyright is a red herring - it exists (in the US specifically, and generally, internationally) to protect creative/artistic expression. Short phrases (such as titles of books/songs/movies/etc) cannot be copyrighted, nor can bare facts (e.g., "The Washington Senators won the last game in the World Series by a score of 5-4".)

Further, there are a number of "fair use" exceptions which allow limited use of copyrighted works without the copyright holder's permission.

Trade secret is also not a great match - it protects confidential information/processes used in the conduct of a trade or business which confer a competitive advantage. It's not at all clear to me that the average person using BTC as a medium of exchange is engaged in a trade or business (they might be - but if I buy a cup of coffee, for my own consumption, with BTC, that doesn't sound to me like I'm engaged in a business) or that the use of a particular private key or keypair confers a competitive advantage.

I am not saying there are no property rights in BTC, but I don't think they're going to come from copyright or trade secret.

I do realize that I'm doing an experiment in idealism in trying to apply intellectual property law to Bitcoin.  There are enough small counter arguments that I still find it interesting.  But your point is well taken.

The Uniform Commercial Code explicitly defines General Intangibles as a form of property.  If a judge is willing to allow that Bitcoin is simply a General Intangible, then it's future is bright.  So far I don't see any other legal basis for property rights for Bitcoin until virtual property and virtual resource ownership are tested in court.  Which they might have been and I just haven't found examples. 

However, I do believe the block chain is a large distributed creative work.  I also think its a problem that no license applies to the block chain as its copied all over the world.  Very few people in the developer thread seemed to care.  There is only one registered copyright with the word Bitcoin in the U.S. right now and its by CBS for "The Good Wife S3E13: Bitcoin For Dummies".

Bitcoins are nothing more than copied data that is processed by individuals collectively making their own contributions of data.  "I own Bitcoins and I can spend them" is nothing but an idea.  I believe it is an expressible idea, that the expression is creative, and that the mechanics involved in Bitcoin can enjoy protection under existing copyright law if all else fails.

[deadserious]

unconstitutional blah blah blah.  That libertarian pipe-dream is just that: a pipe-dream.  While you and I might agree that's how it should be, the United States Supreme Court does not, and they are the only ones that matter unless you're talking about a constitutional amendment.

Well, that's not quite true.  The final say is with the states and the people.  Enter Nullification.

http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/

[marcus_of_augustus]

However, I do believe the block chain is a large distributed creative work.  I also think its a problem that no license applies to the block chain as its copied all over the world.  Very few people in the developer thread seemed to care.  There is only one registered copyright with the word Bitcoin in the U.S. right now and its by CBS for "The Good Wife S3E13: Bitcoin For Dummies".

Bitcoins are nothing more than copied data that is processed by individuals collectively making their own contributions of data.  "I own Bitcoins and I can spend them" is nothing but an idea.  I believe it is an expressible idea, that the expression is creative, and that the mechanics involved in Bitcoin can enjoy protection under existing copyright law if all else fails.

The blockchain is a public creative work ... that's an interesting line of thinking. A common good, work of art, branch of the body of mathematics like the database for the digits of Pi for example.

OR ...

Could the blockchain possibly be regarded as a kind of ever-extending, massively multi-party [Ricardian?] Contract?

The blockchain is a multiplied signed, ever extending contract ... also an interesting line of thinking.

Could it be both, i.e., are the two above interpretations mutually exclusive? I would say no, the blockchain could be both of these things.