License on the block chain

[dentldir]

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.

I couldn't have said it any better.  I do believe that the software which manages the data can apply the license to data it manages under U.S. law as well.  Not sure how it works internationally.

I believe doing so will eliminate years of possibly legal stupidity if Bitcoin is ever challenged.

[casascius]

Legally, if a work does not include any licence, it remains copyrighted and cannot be copied without notice.

Except under a broad array of circumstances allowed under the law, including fair use.  When the totality of the circumstances is considered, copying that very brief piece of data was clearly intended by its author, and the presumption of an implicit license is quite plausible.

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.

If this were true, then I could claim that my tire tracks as I drive on a dirt road are copyrighted, and then start asserting claims against Google for publishing pictures of them on Google Maps.

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.

That is an interesting argument, but the determination as to whether or not it applies can only be given by a court.  Since the number you speak of is never more than ten digits - like a phone number - and you can't copyright a number even when it clearly has some notion of creativity (e.g. "2424242424" or "8675309"), I doubt many courts will agree with this argument.

[dentldir]

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.

That is an interesting argument, but the determination as to whether or not it applies can only be given by a court.  Since the number you speak of is never more than ten digits - like a phone number - and you can't copyright a number even when it clearly has some notion of creativity (e.g. "2424242424" or "8675309"), I doubt many courts will agree with this argument.

Since any digital work is simply an integer, and digital works are protected, there has to be precedence on where the line is drawn.

I'll see what I can find.

[casascius]

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.

That works when the software is something like Adobe Illustrator and the software is the tool, not the author.  The key concept of creativity is that it is human expression.  The output of a completely automated process is not creativity in my understanding of Feist.

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.

Bitcoins are probably more akin to virtual property, like swords in MMORPGs, rather than intellectual property.  Is there any case law suggesting that virtual property isn't property?  If not, then "legally Bitcoins have no standing as property" is probably best described as undetermined rather than true.

[casascius]

Since any digital work is simply an integer, and digital works are protected, there has to be precedence on where the line is drawn.

I'll see what I can find.

Whether or not there's a precedent probably depends on whether anyone on trial for copying copyrighted works tried to use "but it's a file, and files are 0's and 1's, and when you string them together, it's just a big number, and numbers aren't copyrightable, therefore digital music isn't copyrightable either" as a defense.  I bet most lawyers would consider it pretty weak and wouldn't waste their time arguing it.  So the chances of there being no precedent are pretty good.

I will bet that 98% of the legal profession doesn't know that, even though that's 100% true.  If it came to be tested, I doubt it would ever result in a finding that "all integers > x" are copyrightable.  Rather, I would expect something along the lines that consider the totality of the circumstances.

A reasonable litmus test would be whether the average joe would look at something and say "That's a number".  If it's an MP3 file, joe would probably say "That's a song", and the test would evaluate to false.  Something 10 digits or less is going to be a "number" pretty much all the time.

[maaku]

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.

Why? How is it any different than a numbered bank account, or electronically traded stocks? In either case we're just talking about numbers in ledgers and transactions on disk on the wire. Just as intangible as bitcoin, but there's perfectly clear ownership.

I think you're seeing a problem where there is none.

[dentldir]

That works when the software is something like Adobe Illustrator and the software is the tool, not the author.  The key concept of creativity is that it is human expression.  The output of a completely automated process is not creativity in my understanding of Feist.

Bitcoins are probably more akin to virtual property, like swords in MMORPGs, rather than intellectual property.  Is there any case law suggesting that virtual property isn't property?  If not, then "legally Bitcoins have no standing as property" is probably best described as undetermined rather than true.

...

I will bet that 98% of the legal profession doesn't know that, even though that's 100% true.  If it came to be tested, I doubt it would ever result in a finding that "all integers > x" are copyrightable.  Rather, I would expect something along the lines that consider the totality of the circumstances.

A reasonable litmus test would be whether the average joe would look at something and say "That's a number".  If it's an MP3 file, joe would probably say "That's a song", and the test would evaluate to false.  Something 10 digits or less is going to be a "number" pretty much all the time.

To play devils advocate, say I were to create a private key to Haiku converter.  Say it was integrated into the client where the private keys were generated and stored as Haikus.  Does clicking the new address button create a "creative" enough work to enjoy copyright protection?  As a programmer I'd say no, but as a judge or jury I don't know. 

Your clarification of undetermined vs true is quite astute as well.

Virtual property is pretty much the cutting edge of intellectual property law theory.  I'm hope it will be better suited to this problem than current copyright laws.  I'm trying to find all the proceedings for Bragg v. Linden Lab to see what they cited for the Second Life suit to understand what laws were cited.  The judge in that case was on point:

“Ultimately at issue in this case are the novel questions of what rights and obligations grow out of the relationship between the owner and creator of a virtual world and its resident-customers. While the property and the world where it is found are ‘virtual,’ the dispute is real.”

[dentldir]

Why? How is it any different than a numbered bank account, or electronically traded stocks? In either case we're just talking about numbers in ledgers and transactions on disk on the wire. Just as intangible as bitcoin, but there's perfectly clear ownership.

I think you're seeing a problem where there is none.

The ownership is clear for bank accounts and stocks because of existing property laws and rights for those items specifically. If I understand correctly, the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by the 50 states in the U.S. is relevant.

I agree with you in principle, but I do believe there are technicalities in play which complicate matters when trying to determine what Bitcoins are legally.  Which is how I got to asking about the license on the block chain.

[casascius]

To play devils advocate, say I were to create a private key to Haiku converter.  Say it was integrated into the client where the private keys were generated and stored as Haikus.  Does clicking the new address button create a "creative" enough work to enjoy copyright protection?  As a programmer I'd say no, but as a judge or jury I don't know. 

The generator itself would be creative work, but the auto-generated Haikus that simply represent random numbers would not be.

I would expect a judge to understand that, even without needing to be a programmer.

A jury, you'd never know.  Those haikus are going to be pretty nonsensical sounding.

Even if a jury would give a resounding yes, it's the wrong area of law.  Intellectual property law exists to promote the sciences and useful arts as an incentive toward creativity, you want a legal framework to assert property rights on an intangible asset.  Intangible property is nothing new, has existed long before computers and virtual worlds, and  there's plenty of law to acknowledge it and define rights regarding it.  This is the law that would apply the most to Bitcoin.

[dentldir]

Even if a jury would give a resounding yes, it's the wrong area of law.  Intellectual property law exists to promote the sciences and useful arts as an incentive toward creativity, you want a legal framework to assert property rights on an intangible asset.  Intangible property is nothing new, has existed long before computers and virtual worlds, and  there's plenty of law to acknowledge it and define rights regarding it.  This is the law that would apply the most to Bitcoin.

Understood and appreciated.  I was just trying it on since copyright could protect against making unauthorized copies of a private key.

Separating intellectual property from general intangible property is probably the right thing to do.  A bank account is a much better reference than a painting in this context.

Just thinking out loud: If I own the balance in the block chain as an intangible asset and it is the only thing that gives me the right to spend it, then I've separated the right to spend from possession of the private key.  In that context, I haven't been wronged if someone steals my private keys and publishes them.  I've only been wronged when someone spends the coins.

I'll have to ponder on this some.  Thanks.

[markm]

Feist seems to reject creativity, at least creativity having certain purposes, from justifying copyright.

Maybe though I have not read enough details of the case.

I guess my interpretation hinges upon whether the creative composing, selection, and placing of untrue "facts" regarding the phone numbers of persons invented by the publisher but not actually existing nor having the listed phone numbers in fact, was a mechanically-generated set of non-player-characters and phone numbers for those non-player-characters or these fictional characters like many many other fictional characters found throughout literature were creatively imagined/invented by human creativity.

Since right up near the top of the page it makes it clear that if the thief had not stolen these creatively inserted fictional characters in their work, they probably would not have ended up in court, it seems clear that not only actual facts about actual people's real phone numbers but also works of fiction pertaining to fictional characters were copied.

How this decision might impact virtual worlds that include fictional characters seems potentially interesting. Consider for example the name generators used by Battle for Wesnoth software, It "creates" fictional characters, including names for them. Was some algorithmic creativity along those lines used by the phone book publisher? If not... if the fictional characters in the phone book were creative works of fiction created by human creativity - where does that leave facts about the adventures of Mickey Mouse and Donald duck, reported as mere facts even though not agreeing with the facts pertaining in virtual worlds manifested by means of servers controlled by Disney Corp?

-MarkM-

[markm]

Just thinking out loud: If I own the balance in the block chain as an intangible asset and it is the only thing that gives me the right to spend it, then I've separated the right to spend from possession of the private key.  In that context, I haven't been wronged if someone steals my private keys and publishes them.  I've only been wronged when someone spends the coins.

I'll have to ponder on this some.  Thanks.

Stealing is wrong, so bad word there. If someone publishes your private keys but your balance remains yours, then maybe your rights of publicity might or might not have been violated, it seems to mem but  I am not a lawyer.

Stealing, theough, as a legal term, does not seem commonly to imply lack of wrongdoing?

Unauthorised entry or access to obtain informations, for example, might be implied or somesuch?

Publishing David Bowie's largest balance address, even merely the public key not the private one, possibly could violate his rights of publicity?

(Oops he is still alive I hope? If not then some other famous but not Elvis performer. Politicians might not enjoy quite the same rights of publicity?)

-MarkM-

[casascius]

Since right up near the top of the page it makes it clear that if the thief had not stolen these creatively inserted fictional characters in their work, they probably would not have ended up in court, it seems clear that not only actual facts about actual people's real phone numbers but also works of fiction pertaining to fictional characters were copied.

The fake entries are how they knew it was copied, not the "creative work" in question.  Without the fake entries, they would have a near-impossible burden of proving the entries were copied and not compiled independently.  That is how they would have not ended up in court. "Look your honor he made a phone book and the only way he could have gotten everyone's phone numbers is by copying mine" would be a fast track to being sent home.

[markm]

Since right up near the top of the page it makes it clear that if the thief had not stolen these creatively inserted fictional characters in their work, they probably would not have ended up in court, it seems clear that not only actual facts about actual people's real phone numbers but also works of fiction pertaining to fictional characters were copied.

The fake entries are how they knew it was copied, not the "creative work" in question.  Without the fake entries, they would have a near-impossible burden of proving the entries were copied and not compiled independently.  That is how they would have not ended up in court. "Look your honor he made a phone book and the only way he could have gotten everyone's phone numbers is by copying mine" would be a fast track to being sent home.

The fictional characters were stolen too. Failing to consider them as being works and questioning them was not my doing, it might have been a failure of vision on the part of some lawyer(s) somewhere.

Fictional characters were stolen.

Ask Disney if that is kosher.

Inserting creative works in the form of fictional characters is often used by list providers precisely because if you do not know which of the characters in the list are creative works you cannot defend your theft of the list as a theft of mere facts.

-MarkM-

[casascius]

Inserting creative works in the form of fictional characters is often used by list providers precisely because if you do not know which of the characters in the list are creative works you cannot defend your theft of the list as a theft of mere facts.

In Feist, the Supreme Court actually ruled that information contained in the copied phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.  That means there was found to be no infringement, even despite the presence of fake "creative" entries that were copied.

The Supreme Court is in the position of being the authoritative interpreter of the law of the United States.  Disney does not enjoy that same distinction.

[markm]

Inserting creative works in the form of fictional characters is often used by list providers precisely because if you do not know which of the characters in the list are creative works you cannot defend your theft of the list as a theft of mere facts.

In Feist, the Supreme Court actually ruled that information contained in the copied phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.  That means there was found to be no infringement, even despite the presence of fake "creative" entries that were copied.

The Supreme Court is in the position of being the authoritative interpreter of the law of the United States.  Disney does not enjoy that same distinction.

Disney would not have been going to court over the copying of the "mere facts", they would have been focussed on the "creatively inserted characters".

The decision seems thus to amount to "a few cartoon characters inserted into a display of a real state of affairs in the real world do not give one ownership / copyright over the backdrop real state of affairs against which your characters have been cast".

Doing the case the other way around, I expect Disney might well be found to have ownership / copyright of their characters and that merely casting them against a backdrop of actual state of affairs in the real world would not make it okay for someone to thus cast them.

e,g. Take public domain newsreels and insert Disney characters among them...

-MarkM-