Copyright without KYC

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Copyrighting somethings implies suing for damages from infringement in a court of law, ergo the idea of 'no KYC' - or more correctly put, no legal proof of ownership is a non-starter. Sure one can embed a digital signature proving that you created some work that can be copyrighted but at some point you WILL have to make your identity known as soon as you go after folks for infringement.

[Blackbacked]

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

Be honest - so called "copyright" is a form of privilege from the state. A century ago in many countries patents had been openly called "privileges".
So if you want to use state's violence against someone who uses your content be ready to be subject of this violence to yourself: I hope all people on this forum know what will happen if you reveal your physical ID via KYC and the state doest't like you for some reason.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Be honest - so called "copyright" is a form of privilege from the state. A century ago in many countries patents had been openly called "privileges".
So if you want to use state's violence against someone who uses your content be ready to be subject of this violence to yourself: I hope all people on this forum know what will happen if you reveal your physical ID via KYC and the state doest't like you for some reason.

Using the courts to force action against people who willfully & knowingly infringe against you by in essence STEALING rightful income and/or credit for you creating something unique does not qualify as 'state violence'. It is the government acknowledging what you've created and if desired, that as the person that created it you deserve to be the only person to directly profit from it for a fixed amount of time. No more, no less.

I take it you have never created something useful or desired by others: If you had you would understand the importance of being able to control how it is distributed and yes, if desired, who can profit from it. One is of course also free to let anyone copy it and if you don't care that they may say that they created it and sell it with you getting none of the money they make - well that's up to you. Personally I'd be pissed.

I don't know what country you live in that makes you fear your gov so much but I'm glad to live in the USA where I enjoy the protections that copyright (and Patents) provide.

[Blackbacked]

Using the courts to force action against people who willfully & knowingly infringe against you by in essence STEALING

It is just your subjective opinion, other people have opposite views.
By definition, the word "stealing" means taking other physical property (thief gets the item, you lose).
Copyright and patents are in fact state privileges, regardless like you or not.

If you glorify violence (regardless from state or private actor), you must accept the fact that other people have no moral obligations to refrain from using violence against you, e.g. incite state's authorities against you for any reason. In my country there are a proverb "If there are a man, an article of law to prosecute him can be found". People who pass KYC and reveal their real IDs are the most vulnerable to state's violence. You even don't know how easy is to make you fall into disgrace of the state, especially if you use KYC'ed crypto and don't use anonymization technologies like VPN, TOR, encrypted mail, mixers.

So think again, it is just not in your interest to start this war!

[legiteum]

By definition, the word "stealing" means taking other physical property (thief gets the item, you lose).

So by that definition somebody who takes your Bitcoin isn't a criminal, since Bitcoin is not physical. Nice.

[IXcoinMADEmePOOR]

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?

You probably could do this by giving power of attorney to a lawyer who keeps your details confidential and proves it on your behalf where only the lawyer knows who you are so just prove you are the copyright holder in their presence and timestamp it. You could also just register mail the design to your lawyer and they keep it sealed and in the event of a court case they can open the sealed letter in court revealing the designs and timestamp along with date of letter being rewgistered and posted.

Being completely anonymous would be difficult when bringing a case to court but you could use an attorney as mandate.

[joker_josue]

By chance, I would like to know if the designers and photographers here on the forum would place their work on a marketplace where they would receive dividends in BTC. And whether they were willing to do some kind of KYC.

Anyone here to give feedback? 

[Blackbacked]

So by that definition somebody who takes your Bitcoin isn't a criminal, since Bitcoin is not physical. Nice.

Bitcoin ownership is exclusive. If you have received 1 BTC, other person have lost it.

BTW, even in case of Bitcoin theft nobody will go to the state authorities in my country because very likely even legitimate owner will be charged for "money laundering", "terrorism financing", "illegal banking operations" or similar.

You probably could do this by giving power of attorney to a lawyer who keeps your details confidential

Details can be confidential for ordinary people, but not state authorities. You lose all confidentiality/privacy when doing KYC. There are no exceptions!


[moderator's note: multiple posts have been merged]

[legiteum]

So by that definition somebody who takes your Bitcoin isn't a criminal, since Bitcoin is not physical. Nice.

Bitcoin ownership is exclusive. If you have received 1 BTC, other person have lost it.

But you implied above that since intellectual property does not have a physical manifestation, it is somehow not property that should be protected by law. Both Bitcoin and intellectual property are non-tangible assets. Either you believe these should be protected or you don't.

BTW, even in case of Bitcoin theft nobody will go to the state authorities in my country because very likely even legitimate owner will be charged for "money laundering", "terrorism financing", "illegal banking operations" or similar.

That's awful. That's not the way it works in my country, thankfully. Here in the USA, if somebody steals something from you, you go to the authorities. That goes for physical things like your car, or non-tangible things like Bitcoin or your copyrights.

I hope you don't wish for the whole world to work the way your country does, because that sounds like a pretty bad place.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

By chance, I would like to know if the designers and photographers here on the forum would place their work on a marketplace where they would receive dividends in BTC. And whether they were willing to do some kind of KYC.

Anyone here to give feedback?  

Well, It's been a long time since I've dabbled but my art is on DeviantArt https://www.deviantart.com/phluph and gallery is https://www.deviantart.com/phluph/gallery
Would I accept BTC as payment for prints? Sure. Only problem is that DeviantArt is not setup to use it.

As I've said before, I have NO problems with KYC and see absolutely NOTHING wrong with requiring it. Let's put it this way - when I purchase something expensive that has a warranty guess what? I register it. If the retailer only accepts CCards - again KYC is in place. That is just 2 examples of KYC in everyday life..

[Blackbacked]

But you implied above that since intellectual property does not have a physical manifestation, it is somehow not property that should be protected by law. Both Bitcoin and intellectual property are non-tangible assets. Either you believe these should be protected or you don't.

At first, my point was about exclusive ownership: you lose your crypto if transfer it to another person, but you don't lose original copy if you make another.
At second, no sane person will go to authorities about crypto theft because with 99% probability he will be charged for "money laundering". If you own crypto, you keep it in the absolute secret from the state - it is the rule of survival in my country.

That's awful. That's not the way it works in my country, thankfully. Here in the USA, if somebody steals something from you, you go to the authorities. That goes for physical things like your car, or non-tangible things like Bitcoin or your copyrights.

I hope you don't wish for the whole world to work the way your country does, because that sounds like a pretty bad place.

Regardless of my wish, US and EU just now rapidly transforming to the political-economic form of my country (BTW, 90% of world population lives like in my country and NOT the US).
Rejecting universal moral leads to this. I very hope all of you, US govt supporters, will see civil war in US because have really deserved it!

[legiteum]

At first, my point was about exclusive ownership: you lose your crypto if transfer it to another person, but you don't lose original copy if you make another.

No, when you use your Bitcoin to make a transfer, you still have your original bits. They are worthless now, but you still have them.

Regardless of my wish, US and EU just now rapidly transforming to the political-economic form of my country (BTW, 90% of world population lives like in my country and NOT the US).

Rejecting universal moral leads to this. I very hope all of you, US govt supporters, will see civil war in US because have really deserved it!

So you seem to conceded that the US and the EU are still dominions that are safer for Bitcoin holders, but yet you wish for all of us to perish.

You are going to need to pick a lane .

[joker_josue]

By chance, I would like to know if the designers and photographers here on the forum would place their work on a marketplace where they would receive dividends in BTC. And whether they were willing to do some kind of KYC.

Anyone here to give feedback?  

Well, It's been a long time since I've dabbled but my art is on DeviantArt https://www.deviantart.com/phluph and gallery is https://www.deviantart.com/phluph/gallery
Would I accept BTC as payment for prints? Sure. Only problem is that DeviantArt is not setup to use it.

As I've said before, I have NO problems with KYC and see absolutely NOTHING wrong with requiring it. Let's put it this way - when I purchase something expensive that has a warranty guess what? I register it. If the retailer only accepts CCards - again KYC is in place. That is just 2 examples of KYC in everyday life..

The problem that I have seen is that many do not like to associate KYC with the use of Bitcoin. As soon as you do KYC and receive Bitcoin, you are creating this connection, which many don't like.

Now, I understand that it all depends on the purpose of KYC.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

I have already chosen the political side very long ago and I have strongly anti-US position. Currently US jurisdiction in very unfriendly to crypto users comparing to many other countries.

This discussion is NOT about using Bitcoin and the KYC involved nor how your apparently corrupt government deals with it vs the US and EU... At least in the US and EU BTC is completely legal and yes for the US at least, in my opinion quite reasonably regulated and taxed.

So getting back on topic I should add that most of my artwork IS copyrighted under Creative Commons as 'free to copy and distribute for non-commercial use provided credit to the Author (me) is given'. Would I pursue legal actions against anyone selling it or claiming it as their own work? Damn straight I would!

[joker_josue]

So getting back on topic I should add that most of my artwork IS copyrighted under Creative Commons as 'free to copy and distribute for non-commercial use provided credit to the Author (me) is given'. Would I pursue legal actions against anyone selling it or claiming it as their own work? Damn straight I would!

But you can only request this if the user in question has KYC.

Imagine that someone takes your work and puts it on the marketplace without KYC. How could you accuse this person? I wouldn't be able to do it, I would have to go against the marketplace. Right?

How can a balance be created between these two sides?

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Imagine that someone takes your work and puts it on the marketplace without KYC. How could you accuse this person?

I would contact the marketplace, present my proof and leave it up to them to take down the seller. If it was posted at another art site as being created by a different person - same thing: present my proof and leave it up to the site to take it down.

If a marketplace or website does not comply - bring lawyers into play against the sites.

[joker_josue]

Imagine that someone takes your work and puts it on the marketplace without KYC. How could you accuse this person?

I would contact the marketplace, present my proof and leave it up to them to take down the seller. If it was posted at another art site as being created by a different person - same thing: present my proof and leave it up to the site to take it down.

If a marketplace or website does not comply - bring lawyers into play against the sites.

So you didn't look more closely at a stock image, without KYC and with payments in Bitcoin?

[Blackbacked]

If a marketplace or website does not comply - bring lawyers into play against the sites.

If some marketplace works without KYC, it will never cooperate with the state regardless the subject of complaint. It is very naive to think they will obey privileges granted to you by the state (so called "copyright") and reject other complaints regarding drug sales, money laundering, weapons for terrorists etc.

Semi-legal marketplaces have no practical sense in real world: you have either to operate anonymously and reject any state's intervention or obey ALL laws including KYC.

[joker_josue]

If a marketplace or website does not comply - bring lawyers into play against the sites.

If some marketplace works without KYC, it will never cooperate with the state regardless the subject of complaint. It is very naive to think they will obey privileges granted to you by the state (so called "copyright") and reject other complaints regarding drug sales, money laundering, weapons for terrorists etc.

Semi-legal marketplaces have no practical sense in real world: you have either to operate anonymously and reject any state's intervention or obey ALL laws including KYC.

In this specific case we are talking about, an image marketplace, there is no law that requires the marketplace to have KYC.
But if there are copyright issues and there is no KYC, it is the platform that is sued and not the person who actually violated those rights.