So, you want to get sued by a scammer?

[gmaxwell]

We Are All Satoshi

Except for Craig S. Wright.

Craig Wright definitely is not, but he would really like everyone to believe he is.

Satoshi Nakamoto authored the Bitcoin Whitepaper with the intention that it be shared widely, and Craig Wright’s takedown notices are fraudulent, but since he is a litigious jerk who has bankrupted people with his fraudulent legal claims in court, it is sometimes a wise strategic choice to avoid provoking him into suing, which is expensive and disruptive to a defendant even when they ultimately win.

But you might be in a good position to host this paper that Craig Wright so desperately wants taken down and kept under his exclusive control. And you might want to give notice to his attorneys, just to let them know.  Below is an example notice you can send to his attornies.

Warning: sending this makes you considerably more likely to become the target of a lawsuit by Craig Wright. You should think about whether you are prepared to be in that position before sending this letter.

(This is absolutely, positively, not legal advice, and you are strongly encouraged to consult with your own attorney.)

To: Simon Cohen <Simon.Cohen@ontier.co.uk>
Cc: Paul Ferguson <paul.ferguson@ontier.co.uk>

Mr. Cohen,

I have recently become aware that the firm of Ontier LLP has been sending notices on behalf of Craig S. Wright to parties hosting “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” (the “Bitcoin Whitepaper”), alleging that Mr. Wright is the rightful copyright holder of the Bitcoin Whitepaper and that further distribution is an infringement of Wright’s exclusive rights.

I believe this to be a fraudulent misrepresentation of both the authorship of the paper and of its licensing status for many reasons, including but not limited to the following:

    • The Bitcoin Whitepaper was released into the public domain upon its initial publication by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list. All participants to the Cypherpunks list, including Satoshi Nakamoto, agreed to the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL) for their list contributions, which states "The intent of the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL) is to inform users that they are free to use and redistribute the indicated work or any derived or modified work in any manner they choose. Works distributed under the CPL are in the Public Domain. [...] The distributors will not use or participate as far as they are able to government legal systems to attempt to enforce requests restricting the use, modifications, or redistribution of the work for perpetuity."  

    • The Bitcoin Whitepaper was additionally released, along with the initial public version of the software, under the MIT license. This license is a perpetual grant to the general public of the right to “use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies” of the software and associated documentation files (including the Bitcoin Whitepaper) and may not be revoked or rescinded, even by the true author.
    
    • The Bitcoin Whitepaper was authored by a person or entity writing under the name Satoshi Nakamoto, and any exclusive rights under copyright are held by that person or entity (or their assignees). There is no evidence that Wright is that person; in fact, despite challenges in courts of law and mass media journalism, Wright has been either unable to provide proof, unwilling to produce proof, or produced documentary support in the form of forgeries. Any reasonable observer would conclude from this that Wright is unable to claim this connection through legitimate means, and is not Satoshi Nakamoto.

    • Wright has attempted to defraud the courts for his own personal advantage on previous occasions. For one example, he perjured himself in an earlier legal proceeding, which was exposed by the true owners of $200M+ in bitcoins he claimed to own producing unforgeable digital signatures stating that Wright was a fraud. His claims cannot simply be taken at face value, even when made through counsel.

It is therefore my good faith belief that I have valid license to distribute copies of the Bitcoin Whitepaper and that Wright’s claims do not have any bearing on that right. Upon that belief, I am hosting a copy at [ADDRESS].

I am providing notice to your firm so that any credible claims to the contrary may be addressed in a timely fashion to avoid running out the clock on equitable defenses.

Best,
[NAME]

Old version:

To: Simon Cohen <Simon.Cohen@ontier.co.uk>
Cc: Paul Ferguson <paul.ferguson@ontier.co.uk>

Mr. Cohen,

I have recently become aware that the firm of Ontier LLP has been sending notices on behalf of Craig S. Wright to parties hosting “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” (the “Bitcoin Whitepaper”), alleging that Mr. Wright is the rightful copyright holder of the Bitcoin Whitepaper and that further distribution is an infringement of Wright’s exclusive rights.

I believe this to be a fraudulent misrepresentation of both the authorship of the paper and of its licensing status for many reasons, including but not limited to the following:

    • The Bitcoin Whitepaper was released, along with the initial public version of the software, under the MIT license. This license is a perpetual grant to the general public of the right to “use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies” of the software and associated documentation files (including the Bitcoin Whitepaper) and may not be revoked or rescinded, even by the true author.
    
    • The Bitcoin Whitepaper was authored by a person or entity writing under the name Satoshi Nakamoto, and any exclusive rights under copyright are held by that person or entity (or their assignees). There is no evidence that Wright is that person; in fact, despite challenges in courts of law and mass media journalism, Wright has been either unable to provide proof, unwilling to produce proof, or produced documentary support in the form of forgeries. Any reasonable observer would conclude from this that Wright is unable to claim this connection through legitimate means, and is not Satoshi Nakamoto.

    • Wright has attempted to defraud the courts for his own personal advantage on previous occasions. For one example, he perjured himself in an earlier legal proceeding, which was exposed by the true owners of $200M+ in bitcoins he claimed to own producing unforgeable digital signatures stating that Wright was a fraud. His claims cannot simply be taken at face value, even when made through counsel.

It is therefore my good faith belief that I have valid license to distribute copies of the Bitcoin Whitepaper and that Wright’s claims do not have any bearing on that right. Upon that belief, I am hosting a copy at [ADDRESS].

I am providing notice to your firm so that any credible claims to the contrary may be addressed in a timely fashion to avoid running out the clock on equitable defenses.

Best,
[NAME]

[1714728040]

1714728040

[1714728040]

1714728040

[1714728040]

1714728040

[1714728040]

1714728040

[1714728040]

1714728040

[1714728040]

1714728040

[gmaxwell]

People have frequently asked what equitable defences means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity).

[spooderman]

God, for how long must this anus of a man plague bitcoin?

[QuintinS]

I'm pretty sure that there is a business law blocking this act in most countries, but I can't think what it's called. There is also another law, but I think it is the one you have pointed out. I'm not a lawyer, so can't really say.

[gmaxwell]

I've updated this with a new most excellent section that was substantially contributed by Arthur Van Pelt using supporting documentation provided by xtraelv.

[DaRude]

I'm surprised to see that one man (even backed by a billionaire) is able to terrorize everyone. I'm guessing this is not challenged in court due to limited financial resources? Is crowdfunding an option?

[xtraelv]

Bruce Fenton also wrote a great analysis. http://brucefenton.com/blog/copyright-and-the-bitcoin-white-paper/

[gmaxwell]

Bruce Fenton also wrote a great analysis. http://brucefenton.com/blog/copyright-and-the-bitcoin-white-paper/

Wow no, that analysis is just top to bottom full of errors.

"Papers by themselves aren’t licensed".  Not true.  Post Berne convention, any copyrightable work is copyrighted by default, and you cannot reproduce it without a license of some kind. (excepting some special cases like works of the US Federal government)  Papers often do specify licensing (unless they're all-rights-reserved: in which case you're just getting no license), specifying licensing is a universal requirement in academic publication (though sometimes you're not given a choice, you're just forced to assign copyright to the publisher or likewise).

"Open source documentation is also not copyrighted if it is given away in an open source license."  All licensed open source works are copyrighted.  The license permits you to do all sorts of stuff (if its an open source license), but it's still copyrighted and some rights are usually reserved (for example, even the most permissive licenses don't generally allow you to falsify attribution or strip licensing info).

"If the author or other owner claims ownership and registers it or uses (c), date and the copyright holder’s name at publication then it’s usually considered copyrighted."  post berne convention no copyright notice or registration is required for a work to be copyrighted. It's considered a polite practice, but is legally unimportant now.

In the US you need to register to sue in court, but that doesn't need to be done proactively in advance.

"the gift can’t be taken back and claimed as a copyright." The work is still copyrighted, so this sentence is just incoherent.  The licenses isn't revocable.

"If a copyright holder allows publication of a work by other sources and does not challenge this, the holder weakens its claim.", unlike trademark there is no duty to enforce in copyright.  Though there may be equitable defences in some situations (see mention in the letter) they are generally fairly narrow, and don't implicitly create a duty to enforce.

Providing actually false information doesn't help anyone, even if it's falsehoods used to cheer along a good cause.

Edit: After writing this, I found out that my partner, who is an attorney on the board of the Free Software foundation and is one of the authors of the CC-4.0 licenses independantly attempted to correct many of these and other errors earlier today and was just blown off.

[SatsLife]

Great thread Greg!

Why would the previously confirmed plagiarist decide to do this now? January 2021. Other than simply trying to attract more attention and stay “relevant“.

[M-BTC]

Does the CPL-license also apply to the Cryptography mailing list, since that is where Satoshi spread the whitepaper?

[BitcoinFX]

I've updated this with a new most excellent section that was substantially contributed by Arthur Van Pelt using supporting documentation provided by xtraelv.

h/t xtraelv, @MyLegacyKit (twitter), nutildah (for the forum topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.0 ) and to all who continually refute and debunk CSW's claim to be satoshi, as he has not provided any valid cryptographically assured proof, to date, whatsoever, whilst remaining abhorrent towards original Bitcoin (BTC), the developers and the entire cryptocurrency community.

We were ready for this. Truth and justice must prevail.

I'm guessing around a 0.00000001% chance that Craig Wright will actually waltz off with any Bitcoin related Intellectual Property in this case.

Craig Wright is not satoshi and he had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of Bitcoin.

Dave Kleiman is not satoshi either and he had nothing to do with the creation of Bitcoin.

One of Dave's hard drives contained a text note which stated "Is this a Satoshi address ..." (in a recent court doc.) ... he was a digital forensic investigator ...

Which is why I recall this ...

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4359615.msg42180805#msg42180805

...

Craig Wright attempting to obtain Bitcoin related Intellectual Property through this court case (now a total farce) is quite clearly the 'end game' to justify his means. He has tried to 'hijack' the Bitcoin project, although he has only provided proven fabrications and circumstantial evidence to date, and therefore he will fail.

The only winners in this case are already the lawyers, which is usually the case!

...

The patents that both Craig and nChain 'hold' are completely worthless i.e. Prior Art ...

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5216304.msg53820493#msg53820493

Highlights ...

"Worthless and unenforceable patents !?

- https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5960/can-i-patent-open-source-project

"You can not patent code. You can only patent an invention which is implemented in your code. An invention is a new and unique way of doing something..."

...

"... Most of all, it must be something nobody did before. If anyone used the same technique which you describe in your patent, that's called prior art and invalidates your patent..."

...

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.msg52932888#msg52932888

Quote: "The bitcoin whitepaper was first distributed by Satoshi Nakamoto on the Cypherpunks mailing list. The mailing list has a Cypherpunks anti-License. http://cypherspace.org/CPL/ ... "

...

"Background ...

The CPL is written from a mindset which derides the very concept of Intellectual Property restrictions as being incompatible with a free society ..."

...

"... Cryptographically assured anonymity and anonymous use of Internet resources mean that denizens of cypherspace can ignore copyright, licenses attempting to control use and distribution of works, and patents on ideas..."

...

"... It is not possible to enforce IP laws by calls to government legal systems when the flaunter is strongly anonymous. ..."

...

"CSW's and nChain's patents are likely Prior Art i.e. worthless and unenforceable without said cryptographically assured proof."

...

Returning to the OP ...

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5250960.0

CSW has provided zero cryptographically assured proof, to date, whilst others have cryptographically proven him to be a liar and a fraud.

...

satoshi, in many respects, was Hal Finney.

Nakamoto, the originator, was/is someone else entirely ... N+1

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155191.0

...

For Whom The Bell Tolls ...
- https://youtu.be/eeqGuaAl6Ic

Good work gmaxwell! (and of course to the the real Satoshi Nakamoto for being so prescient in this regard!)

[Coinsfera]

The man has appeared again and claims the copyright of #Bitcoin #whitepaper. Unbelievable.

[mrdavis]

Well, I hope I get a letter back so I can hang it on my wall.

Selling literally self-hosted copies here:
http://teespring.com/white-paper

[Renampun]

*thanks g for the warning and thanks also for this great topic...
taking care of that scammer would only be a drain on energy. he will not recover from his ambition to become the richest man in the world with the Bitcoin whitepaper in under his bed. C.W is a jerk as well as bsv.

[DaRude]

*thanks g for the warning and thanks also for this great topic...
taking care of that scammer would only be a drain on energy. he will not recover from his ambition to become the richest man in the world with the Bitcoin whitepaper in under his bed. C.W is a jerk as well as bsv.

Questions is whether this would be setting a precedent, and would be harder to challenge later on. Clearly the goal here is not to hide the whitepaper but rather spook investors and once again remind of yourself as an ongoing risk to be considered.

[chek2fire]

Craig Wright transform to a patent troll.

[ranman09]

What? HAHA! so he was trying to control the distribution of the white paper? So what, he can release it on Amazon Kindle? He would do this, all of this, for money?

I'm not that familiar with him, is he somehow related to Craig's List?

[xtraelv]

A free opinion piece is never the same as a detailed legal opinion.

I've since asked a business associate that specializes in copyright law to have a look at the different opinions.

Bruce Fenton also wrote a great analysis. http://brucefenton.com/blog/copyright-and-the-bitcoin-white-paper/

Wow no, that analysis is just top to bottom full of errors.

"Papers by themselves aren’t licensed".  Not true.  Post Berne convention, any copyrightable work is copyrighted by default, and you cannot reproduce it without a license of some kind. (excepting some special cases like works of the US Federal government)  Papers often do specify licensing (unless they're all-rights-reserved: in which case you're just getting no license), specifying licensing is a universal requirement in academic publication (though sometimes you're not given a choice, you're just forced to assign copyright to the publisher or likewise).

"Open source documentation is also not copyrighted if it is given away in an open source license."  All licensed open source works are copyrighted.  The license permits you to do all sorts of stuff (if its an open source license), but it's still copyrighted and some rights are usually reserved (for example, even the most permissive licenses don't generally allow you to falsify attribution or strip licensing info).

"If the author or other owner claims ownership and registers it or uses (c), date and the copyright holder’s name at publication then it’s usually considered copyrighted."  post berne convention no copyright notice or registration is required for a work to be copyrighted. It's considered a polite practice, but is legally unimportant now.

In the US you need to register to sue in court, but that doesn't need to be done proactively in advance.

"the gift can’t be taken back and claimed as a copyright." The work is still copyrighted, so this sentence is just incoherent.  The licenses isn't revocable.

"If a copyright holder allows publication of a work by other sources and does not challenge this, the holder weakens its claim.", unlike trademark there is no duty to enforce in copyright.  Though there may be equitable defences in some situations (see mention in the letter) they are generally fairly narrow, and don't implicitly create a duty to enforce.

Providing actually false information doesn't help anyone, even if it's falsehoods used to cheer along a good cause.

Edit: After writing this, I found out that my partner, who is an attorney on the board of the Free Software foundation and is one of the authors of the CC-4.0 licenses independantly attempted to correct many of these and other errors earlier today and was just blown off.

[BobLawblaw]

Selling literally self-hosted copies here:
http://teespring.com/white-paper

No white text on black shirt option.

This is a tremendous oversight, not to mention a terrible crime against basic fashion-sense.

[DaRude]

If i was asked to say the most anti Satoshi thing i could think of i'd be hard pressed to think of something better that this

...I will burn Cryptocurrency to non existence and have the US government collect the ashes...

In any case, expecting mass carpet lawsuits against every dev next, hope they're ready and coordination is being prepped. Short term contingency plans for anonymous contributions behind tor, etc would also be nice. Bastards can easily finance it by Ayre shorting the market by front running  the "announcement" too.