đź“… Original date posted:2015-09-02
đź“ť Original message:I am skeptical that any license for the blockchain itself is needed because
of the possibility that the blockchain is not entitled to copyright
protection. While I am not a lawyer, I have stared hard at the copyright
doctrine of the U.S. in multiple law school Intellectual Property courses
and during my previous career in Open Source Software where copyright
matters a great deal.
As each owner of a
> coin makes a transfer by digitally signing a hash of the previous
> transaction along with the
> new owner’s public key, the block chain is a perpetual compilation of
> unique data.
> *It is therefore compiled in a creative and non-obvious way.* In the USA,
> for example, these
> attributes confer legal protections for databases which have been ruled
> upon by the courts.
This portion of your paper I believe is not true and requires citations if
you want to be convincing. Is it truly "creative and non-obvious"? My
understanding under at least U.S. law, the blockchain may not be entitled
to copyright protection because a compilation created in a mechanical
manner is not a creative work of a human.
I suppose a transaction could contain a "creative" element if it contains
arbitrary bytes of a message or clever script. For the most part though
most of what you call "digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction
along with the new owner’s public key" is purely the result of a mechanical
process and really is not creative. Furthermore, even if that output were
"non-obvious", obviousness has nothing to do with copyrightability.
Your license is correct in intent in attempting to exclude from the royalty
free grant works within the blockchain that themselves may be subject to
copyright of third parties. The elements within the blockchain may be
entitled individually to copyright if they are in any way a creative work
of a human, but as a compilation I am doubtful the blockchain itself is
entitled to copyright.
I understand copyright with respect to databases can be different under
other jurisdictions. Your paper mentions the European database law that is
indeed different from the U.S. Your paper is incomplete in scholarly and
legal citations. I myself and we as a community don't know enough. I
suppose this topic merits further study.
Warren Togami
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement the
> existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference client
> software.
>
> Replacing or amending the existing MIT Licence is beyond the scope of this
> draft BIP.
>
> Rationale and details of our draft BIP for discussion and evaluation are
> here:
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing
>
> Regards,
>
> Ahmed
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150902/f96f29e5/attachment.html>;
Warren Togami Jr. [ARCHIVE] /
npub1s5…zxem8
2023-06-07 17:39:06
in reply to nevent1q…6lht
Author Public Key
npub1s5p2xnl52ksr3a4qfa8re5znmja46ugm3x3ayy0x2c2mqrsw6ewsmzxem8Published at
2023-06-07 17:39:06Event JSON
{
"id": "86944f3556eb271d27b5a45f127234e2f5ba1680679e76da94b25e71a9e64d2b",
"pubkey": "8502a34ff455a038f6a04f4e3cd053dcbb5d711b89a3d211e65615b00e0ed65d",
"created_at": 1686159546,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"89a8564b0381eb9568c793c79e358089ddd2d980a31babc3b47efd374cf7b99e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3fc1c5b3cfb3aed8edc341f9079dd9e0f62f2c68944383e5907c03857d710d0f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"54b5fe9842fcd9c6cd83b5b6f4cb59534a34592274c9f60cd06aa7eaf5db4274"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-02\n📝 Original message:I am skeptical that any license for the blockchain itself is needed because\nof the possibility that the blockchain is not entitled to copyright\nprotection. While I am not a lawyer, I have stared hard at the copyright\ndoctrine of the U.S. in multiple law school Intellectual Property courses\nand during my previous career in Open Source Software where copyright\nmatters a great deal.\n\nAs each owner of a\n\u003e coin makes a transfer by digitally signing a hash of the previous\n\u003e transaction along with the\n\u003e new owner’s public key, the block chain is a perpetual compilation of\n\u003e unique data.\n\u003e *It is therefore compiled in a creative and non-obvious way.* In the USA,\n\u003e for example, these\n\u003e attributes confer legal protections for databases which have been ruled\n\u003e upon by the courts.\n\n\nThis portion of your paper I believe is not true and requires citations if\nyou want to be convincing. Is it truly \"creative and non-obvious\"? My\nunderstanding under at least U.S. law, the blockchain may not be entitled\nto copyright protection because a compilation created in a mechanical\nmanner is not a creative work of a human.\n\nI suppose a transaction could contain a \"creative\" element if it contains\narbitrary bytes of a message or clever script. For the most part though\nmost of what you call \"digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction\nalong with the new owner’s public key\" is purely the result of a mechanical\nprocess and really is not creative. Furthermore, even if that output were\n\"non-obvious\", obviousness has nothing to do with copyrightability.\n\nYour license is correct in intent in attempting to exclude from the royalty\nfree grant works within the blockchain that themselves may be subject to\ncopyright of third parties. The elements within the blockchain may be\nentitled individually to copyright if they are in any way a creative work\nof a human, but as a compilation I am doubtful the blockchain itself is\nentitled to copyright.\n\nI understand copyright with respect to databases can be different under\nother jurisdictions. Your paper mentions the European database law that is\nindeed different from the U.S. Your paper is incomplete in scholarly and\nlegal citations. I myself and we as a community don't know enough. I\nsuppose this topic merits further study.\n\nWarren Togami\n\nOn Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Ahmed Zsales via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Hello,\n\u003e\n\u003e We believe the network requires a block chain licence to supplement the\n\u003e existing MIT Licence which we believe only covers the core reference client\n\u003e software.\n\u003e\n\u003e Replacing or amending the existing MIT Licence is beyond the scope of this\n\u003e draft BIP.\n\u003e\n\u003e Rationale and details of our draft BIP for discussion and evaluation are\n\u003e here:\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEbhrQ4ELzBMVFxajNZa2hzMTg/view?usp=sharing\n\u003e\n\u003e Regards,\n\u003e\n\u003e Ahmed\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150902/f96f29e5/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "57ca1a5f1ab8e0dde027abad21984ca1c4abc2263817cae740f760525dbde3b4b6df7a351d1d35179653c3301d2035f6a037ac60efa2eacf31badf44f3fe679a"
}