License on the block chain

[dentldir]

Is there an existing license on the block chain that puts it in the public domain?

Thanks.

[1713504977]

1713504977

[kjj]

License?  Mere collections of facts are not subject to copyright laws anywhere in the world that I'm aware of.

[dentldir]

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.

[markm]

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-

[dentldir]

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.

[maaku]

My understanding is that a database is protectable by copyright in the EU.

The blockchain is not a database. Relevance?

[dentldir]

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?

[markm]

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-

[maaku]

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?

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.

[kjj]

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?

[Gavin Andresen]

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.

[dentldir]

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.

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.

[dentldir]

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?

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.

[kjj]

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.

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.

[dentldir]

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.

[maaku]

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?

[casascius]

In the model I'm trying to build, the private key is copyrighted by an individual.

This is almost certainly flawed from the start.  Copyrights protect creative works.  A private key is a random number completely devoid of creativity.  It cannot be copyrighted.  See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), though, I am not a lawyer.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural

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.

I would be willing to bet that a private key is more likely to be considered possible evidence of a right to spend, but not a token of the right itself, just the same way a dollar bill represents a US dollar, but doesn't necessarily represent that the person holding it has a legal right to it.

If I break into your house and steal your fiat cash, some stock certificates, and private keys, do I acquire the right to spend your cash and bitcoins and sell your stocks?  With the cash, I don't necessarily acquire the right to spend it, even though I acquire the ability to spend it, and if I were to be caught having stolen and spent your cash or sold your stocks, I would be liable to you for depriving you of it and would likely owe you restitution.  The dollar changed hands, but the right to spend it did not.  If I'm not caught, then I become the owner of those only in a putative sense: I'm in possession, and since no one can prove otherwise, it's presumptively mine.  That's pretty different than receiving it legally.

So clearly, I don't acquire any legally sanctioned right to spend your fiat cash by stealing it.  I can think of no reason why the existing legal framework will suddenly be interested in treating Bitcoins any differently just because their ownership is proven technologically through numbers.

[dentldir]

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?

Tangible property has a long history of property rights.  So no you don't.

Intangible property has a short history and limited precedence to draw from.  Except possibly for copyright laws.

[dree12]

There is certainly a copyrightable aspect about the blockchain, as any non-trivial work is under copyright. IANAL, but here is my take.

First, a priori we know:

• Most blocks in the blockchain has a parent that it refers to and effectively incorporates by reference.
• The only block that lacks a parent block is the genesis block.
• The genesis block was originally licenced under the MIT licence:
  

  Copyright © 2009–2012 Bitcoin Developers
  
  Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
  
  The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
  
  THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
  

• No block since the genesis block has any specific licence attached to it (thus far).

Legally, if a work does not include any licence, it remains copyrighted and cannot be copied without notice. The production of a block uses and copies, by reference, the genesis block, directly or indirectly. Additionally, the copyright notice, and the permission notice, are both implied through reference. Therefore, we are left with only the non-genesis blocks.

As the blocks produced by miners are not explicitly licensed, in theory, a miner retains the right to claim intellectual property over that block and all its derivatives. No sane miner would do this, as it effectively means that their blocks will be avoided in the future (and their income will be orphaned). The free market will attempt to build on blocks that have freer licences.

This problem could have been solved if the genesis block were licenced in a copyleft licence, which unfortunately is not the case. Luckily, the miners existing now are unlikely to sue subsequent miners for copyright infringement, nor relaying nodes for unauthorized distribution. However, this is clearly a problem and should be solved.

In conclusion, this loophole should be closed as soon as possible. Luckily, closing this loophole is as simple as explicitly licencing a block under a copyleft licence. One like this will do:

Bitcoin Block License
Attached to a block

Usage, distribution, or any form of duplication of the block this licence has been attached with must solely be regulated by this license. You agree to this license by copying, distributing, or building upon this block, in any manner. This license applies to the entirety of this block, where the copyright owner has an active copyright on the block.

You receive the right to utilize the block, without restrictions. You also receive the right to build upon the block, with any derivative called a "Dependent Block", without restrictions, provided you do not distribute any Dependent Blocks.

If you distribute this block, or any Dependent Block, you must either include this license attached to your block at time of distribution, or be obliged to permanently relinquish the copyright to this block, where legally possible. If, for whatever reason, the previous clause is inadmissible, your Dependent Block is bound by this license, regardless of circumstance.

Certain preceding blocks are licensed under other licences. This license applies to the maximum extent allowed under the licences of preceding blocks.

This is almost certainly flawed from the start.  Copyrights protect creative works.  A private key is a random number completely devoid of creativity.  It cannot be copyrighted.  See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), though, I am not a lawyer.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural

This does not apply, because blocks are creative works. A block is not simply a random number, but rather a number that meets rigid and difficult criteria. In this sense, a block is more comparable to a work of art: randomly generated pixels do not constitute art, but pixels generated in a manner that is appealing does.

[dentldir]

This is almost certainly flawed from the start.  Copyrights protect creative works.  A private key is a random number completely devoid of creativity.  It cannot be copyrighted.  See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), though, I am not a lawyer.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural

I'm seeking to avoid the application of Feist by arguing that the use of software to create a unique expressible idea, then expressing it, is copyrightable.  Particularly if it is unique and original.

My gut tells me that ownership of the private key is the thing to protect.  I'm just not exactly sure how to get there.

I would be willing to bet that a private key is more likely to be considered possible evidence of a right to spend, but not a token of the right itself, just the same way a dollar bill represents a US dollar, but doesn't necessarily represent that the person holding it has a legal right to it.

If I break into your house and steal your fiat cash, some stock certificates, and private keys, do I acquire the right to spend your cash and bitcoins and sell your stocks?  With the cash, I don't necessarily acquire the right to spend it, even though I acquire the ability to spend it, and if I were to be caught having stolen and spent your cash or sold your stocks, I would be liable to you for depriving you of it and would likely owe you restitution.  The dollar changed hands, but the right to spend it did not.  If I'm not caught, then I become the owner of those only in a putative sense: I'm in possession, and since no one can prove otherwise, it's presumptively mine.  That's pretty different than receiving it legally.

So clearly, I don't acquire any legally sanctioned right to spend your fiat cash by stealing it.  I can think of no reason why the existing legal framework will suddenly be interested in treating Bitcoins any differently just because their ownership is proven technologically through numbers.

Thanks for this.  My reasoning is that ownership can't even be established without property rights.   So even though the concept is easy to understand (I own Bitcoins), legally Bitcoins have no standing as property.  Not even intangible property because of how they work.  So I'm trying to put it on an intellectual property track and see how far I can take it.