Copyright without KYC

[joker_josue]

I have been thinking about some projects that could be interesting for Bitcoin, and for our Bitcointalk community, but I often run into the problem: KYC

Most of us agree that KYC is not very good and avoids services that involve it, especially if Bitcoin is present.

With that in mind, I would like to know your opinion:
Do you think there are ways to prove copyright and identities, inside and outside the online world, without KYC?

[BADecker]

Blockchain.

[lembang]

Blockchain.

That's all 

[348Judah]

With that in mind, I would like to know your opinion:
Do you think there are ways to prove copyright and identities, inside and outside the online world, without KYC?

If we completely want to avoid having KYC or anything that has to do with it, then it's more better that we start to learn on how to use the blockchain technology and bitcoin, this will determine on how we go by the privacy and security measures to what we want and how to achieve having it, for anyone who is experienced in bitcoin and digital technology, they will always get to know on the necessary steps on how to achieve thw avoidance of anything that leads to KYC.

[Hispo]

We can already link our online identity thanks to the use of asymmetric cryptography, actually. If you take a look at the Meta thread where people stake their addresses, that is exactly what they do, they register a Bitcoin address, so in the future it becomes extremely easy for people to verify or not whether a post, a document, a paper or a drawing was made by the same person who stake the address.
As it stands for now, the staking of Bitcoin addresses are mostly effective for signing messages, but they can also be implemented in other media.
The real challenge comed when people is expected to keep their private keys safe.

sadly, Even if it became a widespread method to verify one's identity, regulators would still ask for KYC when first summiting the public key.

[btcinfo891]

Do you think there are ways to prove copyright and identities, inside and outside the online world, without KYC?

1. Generate a pair of public/private keys for some asymmetric encryption scheme.
2. Embed the public keys into your digitalized work of art.
3. Put the digitalized work of art (including the embedded keys) onto a popular blockchain.

Aaaaand you essentially get NFTs :-)

Alternatively if you don't want to put it onto a blockchain, you can

1. Generate a pair of public/private keys for some asymmetric encryption scheme.
2. Embed the public keys into your digitalized work of art using steganography
3. Distribute your digitalized work of art.

When someone asks you to prove that the work of art is yours, extract the steganographically hidden public keys and show that you own the private key without revealing it, e.g. by signing a message with your private key and letting everyone check the signed message using the public key.

However when your work of art is not on the blockchain, after you prove once that you own the work of art, everyone will know how the public key is hidden, so someone might remove your public key and replace it with his own public key and claim to own the work of art. Someone could do that with an NFT too, but at least people would be able to see which NFT has been put on the chain first, which means that it is original and the later one is a copy.

Regarding KYCs, they are bad indeed, but you don't really need to KYC your identity in order to create an NFT.

[joker_josue]

We can already link our online identity thanks to the use of asymmetric cryptography, actually. If you take a look at the Meta thread where people stake their addresses, that is exactly what they do, they register a Bitcoin address, so in the future it becomes extremely easy for people to verify or not whether a post, a document, a paper or a drawing was made by the same person who stake the address.
As it stands for now, the staking of Bitcoin addresses are mostly effective for signing messages, but they can also be implemented in other media.
The real challenge comed when people is expected to keep their private keys safe.

sadly, Even if it became a widespread method to verify one's identity, regulators would still ask for KYC when first summiting the public key.

This kind of approach, to be interesting and not too complex.
But, when we move into the real world, things can get more complicated, because without KYC you cannot connect with anyone.

For example, imagine that I put a photo signed by me on the internet. So someone comes and copies my photo and sells it as theirs. How could I prosecute this person?

[Hispo]

We can already link our online identity thanks to the use of asymmetric cryptography, actually. If you take a look at the Meta thread where people stake their addresses, that is exactly what they do, they register a Bitcoin address, so in the future it becomes extremely easy for people to verify or not whether a post, a document, a paper or a drawing was made by the same person who stake the address.
As it stands for now, the staking of Bitcoin addresses are mostly effective for signing messages, but they can also be implemented in other media.
The real challenge comed when people is expected to keep their private keys safe.

sadly, Even if it became a widespread method to verify one's identity, regulators would still ask for KYC when first summiting the public key.

This kind of approach, to be interesting and not too complex.
But, when we move into the real world, things can get more complicated, because without KYC you cannot connect with anyone.

For example, imagine that I put a photo signed by me on the internet. So someone comes and copies my photo and sells it as theirs. How could I prosecute this person?

The negative consecuencias or the prosecution would come easily whether the system is centralized and have repercussions in the already established systems of courts, but that would be against the very principles which were used in the foundation of decentralized cryptography, like the one which is used by Bitcoin.
In short, I am not sure how it would be possible to prosecute or punish those who steal content. the proof of ownership is not as problem as I already explained. but the next step it tricky, if you asked a lawyer , then next step would be to take the case to a court, but in reality, those processes can be expensive and not worth when compared to the value of the intelectual property itself.

[joker_josue]

The negative consecuencias or the prosecution would come easily whether the system is centralized and have repercussions in the already established systems of courts, but that would be against the very principles which were used in the foundation of decentralized cryptography, like the one which is used by Bitcoin.
In short, I am not sure how it would be possible to prosecute or punish those who steal content. the proof of ownership is not as problem as I already explained. but the next step it tricky, if you asked a lawyer , then next step would be to take the case to a court, but in reality, those processes can be expensive and not worth when compared to the value of the intelectual property itself.

So from your perspective, what would be the best way to protect intellectual property without KYC? Or do you think there is no way to do this?

[Apocollapse]

For example, imagine that I put a photo signed by me on the internet. So someone comes and copies my photo and sells it as theirs. How could I prosecute this person?

Oldest is the real one, if someone copies and sell it as theirs, just compare the date when it was posted.

Regarding prosecution, it just same like the way your country handling copyright issue, but it seems that most countries didn't yet have clear regulation about online copyright issue using cryptographic.

[joker_josue]

For example, imagine that I put a photo signed by me on the internet. So someone comes and copies my photo and sells it as theirs. How could I prosecute this person?

Oldest is the real one, if someone copies and sell it as theirs, just compare the date when it was posted.

Regarding prosecution, it just same like the way your country handling copyright issue, but it seems that most countries didn't yet have clear regulation about online copyright issue using cryptographic.

Yes, that's usually the logic.
The problem is on the intermediary's side (if there is one), who, as they do not collect KYC data, end up being responsible for any process that occurs.

[DonaldTrumpJR]

On the one hand, I think I would know how to determine who the person registering is and verify their data.

On the other hand, there is no guarantee of privacy.

[o48o]

I have been thinking about some projects that could be interesting for Bitcoin, and for our Bitcointalk community, but I often run into the problem: KYC

Most of us agree that KYC is not very good and avoids services that involve it, especially if Bitcoin is present.

With that in mind, I would like to know your opinion:
Do you think there are ways to prove copyright and identities, inside and outside the online world, without KYC?

What exactly you mean by KYC? Because that's literally about proving your identity, which you are looking a solution for. If you mean by replacing current KYC methods by something else, there's always zero knowledge proofs. In that you don't need to send any info to exchanges or casinos, but you would use the ZK proof instead. That's something Dusk has been building with their Citadel btw. But i am not sure how that's going, or if there are any alternatives around. But i am fairly sure that's coming in some form, because documents get stolen all the time, and ZK fixes so many privacy issues.

[legiteum]

I suspect what you are asking for is essentially an NFT.

Most people don't understand NFTs, which is why I wrote an article about this subject.

A copyright, by it's nature, it a declaration of ownership by a legally identifiable person. A private key cannot go to court and defend it's rights--that must be done by a human being.

A person possessing an contract declaring their ownership of a copyright (viz. if that contract is connected to an NFT, and therefore a private key) would have to go to court to prove damages in the event of a breach of their copyright. In that trial, they would need to prove their ownership of said copyrighted materials, which would get down to the NFT's legal contract, which would specify the nature of the work, the rules for usage, the rights of the holder (e.g. how many copies the seller could sell), and so on.

If the seller of the contract breaches their contract, then they are sued. That is the only recourse, and thus the only thing that makes the NFT valuable.

You can't sue a private key. It must be an actual human being.

That is why identity must be part of copyrights. Anything else is a scam.

[joker_josue]

I suspect what you are asking for is essentially an NFT.

~~

That is why identity must be part of copyrights. Anything else is a scam.

Yes, the NFT could serve this scenario, but it would not be completely effective.
Because as you say, to have copyright, you have to have an identity.

Still, it didn't resolve the issue.
Imagine a photographer who puts his photos up for sale in a stock image. Someone takes these photos and puts them in another image stock, which does not have KYC, and sells them as their own. The photographer could only process the platform, never who actually did it.

Would there be a way to protect both sides: platform and photographer?

[legiteum]

Would there be a way to protect both sides: platform and photographer?

You are talking about the law protecting the rights of two human beings. So no, there is no crypto solution to this problem...

[joker_josue]

Would there be a way to protect both sides: platform and photographer?

You are talking about the law protecting the rights of two human beings. So no, there is no crypto solution to this problem...

Right, that's why they propose that technology will solve or help solve these issues/problems.

The point will be to think of something that can work without KYC or at least with something more limited, that can be useful in cases of rights violations.
Can we find a solution?

[legiteum]

Right, that's why they propose that technology will solve or help solve these issues/problems.

The point will be to think of something that can work without KYC or at least with something more limited, that can be useful in cases of rights violations.

Can we find a solution?

Insofar as there are contracts between parties, the parties cannot be anonymous. It's as simple as that. If you refuse to believe that, you are likely to get taken by a scam.

Scam NFT's work because a few people believe "some technical solution" will override the laws of physics...

[joker_josue]

Insofar as there are contracts between parties, the parties cannot be anonymous. It's as simple as that. If you refuse to believe that, you are likely to get taken by a scam.

Scam NFT's work because a few people believe "some technical solution" will override the laws of physics...

So, considering that many don't like KYC, I ask if there is a better way to do things.

Because it's not enough to say that you don't like it, that it's abusive. But then no minimally valid solution is presented.

[legiteum]

Insofar as there are contracts between parties, the parties cannot be anonymous. It's as simple as that. If you refuse to believe that, you are likely to get taken by a scam.

Scam NFT's work because a few people believe "some technical solution" will override the laws of physics...

So, considering that many don't like KYC, I ask if there is a better way to do things.

Because it's not enough to say that you don't like it, that it's abusive. But then no minimally valid solution is presented.

There are a lot of good reasons for not wanting to divulge your identity--being safe from online criminals, for instance. It would be great if we didn't have to do it as often.

But if you buy a product you want delivered to your home, well, you need to divulge your address. If you buy a car, it must be done under your own name in case it is stolen. If you want to protect your intellectual property, you need to declare that you created it, and the "you" here has to the real you and not an anonymous entity. Not every problem in the world has a neat technical solution.