Copyright Office Weighs In After Wannabe Satoshi Craig Wright Registers Copyright On Original Bitcoin Paper

from the it-never-ends dept

I was tempted to start this post with just a series of head-smashing-into-desk emojis, but I thought that might come off as a bit weird. Remember Craig Wright? He's the somewhat controversial guy who has claimed to have really been Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin. Suffice it to say, there are a lot of people who do not believe Craig Wright, and have highlighted how Wright has failed to provide any of the fairly straightforward methods the original Satoshi could use to prove who he was, and instead used complicated methods that suggest gamesmanship, rather than actual proof.

As we've highlighted in our posts, Wright seems most focused on patenting everything he can with regards to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency -- which, at the very least, seems to go against the open, sharing nature that was a key part of the early cryptocurrency community that Satoshi Nakamoto supported.

And now comes the somewhat hilarious report that Wright has tried to register the copyright on the original Bitcoin whitepaper that Satoshi Nakamoto published. This is basically a troll move. Registering the copyright is meaningless. The Copyright Office does not review carefully if you are the actual creator. It's mostly a rubber stamp process -- and it's rarely an issue because in most cases if someone tried to fraudulently register someone else's copyright, that would come out pretty quickly and it would not take long to sort out what's real. But in this case, when you have an anonymous secret author, it gets a little more complicated.

As CoinCenter's Jerry Brito notes this is sort of a bug of the system, but he also notes that someone else could also register the copyright and see if Wright would actually sue over it (in which case, he'd have to establish to a court that he actually held the copyright):

The situation is getting so much attention, that even the Copyright Office has decided to weigh in, highlighting (as we note above) that it doesn't have any methodology for reviewing these registrations, or for anyone to contest them, and that any such situation would have to happen in federal court (most likely if anyone tried to enforce the copyright).

As a general rule, when the Copyright Office receives an application for registration, the claimant certifies as to the truth of the statements made in the submitted materials. The Copyright Office does not investigate the truth of any statement made.

A registration represents a claim to an interest in a work protected by copyright law, not a determination of the truth of the claims therein. It is possible for multiple, adverse claims to be registered at the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office does not have an opposition procedure for copyright registrations, such as the procedures available at the Patent and Trademark Office for patents and trademark registrations. Disputes over the claims in a registration may be heard before federal courts, including disputes over authorship of a work. Someone who intentionally includes false information in an application may be subject to penalties.

The Copyright Office also points out that it merely asks the applicant to state that they are the author of a pseudonymous piece of content.

In a case in which a work is registered under a pseudonym, the Copyright Office does not investigate whether there is a provable connection between the claimant and the pseudonymous author.

In the case of the two registrations issued to Mr. Wright, during the examination process, the Office took note of the well-known pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto,” and asked the applicant to confirm that Craig Steven Wright was the author and claimant of the works being registered. Mr. Wright made that confirmation. This correspondence is part of the public registration record.

So, this probably doesn't matter, because if Wright actually wants to enforce the copyright, then he'd have to go to court and prove that he was the legitimate holder of the copyright (and the registration by itself won't cut it). But, as a purely dickish way to try to game the system to pretend you have proof of being "Satoshi Nakamoto," it seems to fit in with a pattern of past behavior by Wright. Though not by Nakamoto. Still, it will be interesting to see if this copyright ever ends up in court.

For those of you who have been desperate for a crazy copyright case since the end of the monkey selfie case, I would nominate this potential lawsuit as a worthy followup.

Filed Under: bitcoin, copyright, copyright office, copyright registration, craig wright, satoshi nakamoto, whitepaper

Kim Dotcom Files Brief In His Trial In The Court Of Public Opinion

from the laying-out-the-arguments dept

A bunch of folks have been pointing us to the new "whitepaper" released by Kim Dotcom, which lays out two key things: why the lawsuit against him is a complete legal sham and also why it was driven by a corrupt connection between the US government and the MPAA. The paper is written by his lawyers, including Ira Rothken and Richard Amsterdam (whose addition to his legal team was discussed a few months ago). Frankly, most of this reads like the lawyers refining the eventual motion-to-dismiss filing that they expect to submit to the federal court (should it ever get there). The majority of it is taken up with the clear legal statements as to why the lawsuit is based on very questionable theories. The main point, as we've discussed before in the context of other cases, is that the DOJ seems to have completely made up a legal theory of contributory copyright inducement. While there is such a thing in civil contexts, it's not there in criminal contexts. Supporters of the DOJ will argue that there is aiding and abetting, but the rules there are quite different and, again, it doesn't look like Dotcom and crew would be guilty of such a charge.

The overall point is clearly stated in the whitepaper. Here's a snippet:

The fact of the matter is that the notion of criminal liability for secondary copyright infringement does not exist in U.S. law. The attempt by prosecutors to expand criminal liability for secondary infringement by couching it as “aiding and abetting” or “conspiracy” goes against established precedent in case law and repeated positions taken by the U.S. Congress.

The Copyright Act creates civil and criminal liability for various acts of copyright infringement, but it does not expressly give rise to liability for infringement committed by third parties. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has defined specific circumstances under which service providers may be held civilly liable (i.e., not criminally responsible) for direct copyright infringement by third parties, such as distributing “a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright.”

The fundamental legal problem with this aspect of the government’s case is that only Congress can create new criminal liability; judges cannot. Previous instances in which courts have imposed civil liability for secondary copyright infringement – based on application of common law principles – do not apply in criminal proceedings, as federal crimes are “solely creatures of statute.” Whatever authority the courts may have had to recognize a contributory theory of copyright liability in the civil context, the courts simply have no power to impose a basis for criminal liability beyond what is expressly authorized by statute.

One surprising inclusion is that the whitepaper supports this well known point -- that courts can't create new criminal liability -- by extensively quoting legal analysis from Jay Prabhu from years ago. This is a bit of dagger twisting by Dotcom's legal team. Prabhu, well after writing those analysis, took a job in the Justice Department, and eventually was put in charge of the DOJ's "cybercrime" unit -- and has been a key prosecutor against a number of copyright cases, including various domain seizures. In fact, he's the one who signed the indictment against Dotcom. To use his own words against the case is amusing.

The filing also lays out a number of arguments that we've seen before, including a further explanation of how the DOJ was being totally disingenuous in arguing that Megaupload refused to remove works it knew were infringing, by pointing out the files they mentioned were ones that Megaupload has clearly been asked to preserve as part of an investigation into copyright infringement.

There's also an interesting and more detailed than previous discussed defense on the point about Megaupload's rewards program. We had pointed out how silly it was to use this element against Megaupload, since it was a general rewards program to get people to make use of its cloud storage, and there was nothing in the program that induced more infringement (in fact, it seemed like a great tool for a content creator to make money by releasing his or her own works via the rewards program). On this, Dotcom's whitepaper points out not just those points, but also (1) the fact that lots of other sites have similar rewards programs (2) specific features Megaupload included in its rewards program that made it bad for infringement (including file size limits and required identification) and (3) the fact that they had dropped the program long before the indictment.

While I do wonder how wise it is to basically give the DOJ their opening brief way before they would actually see it in court -- and giving them a lot more time to respond to it -- there are a few reasons why this move could make sense. First, they're so damn confident in their argument that it doesn't really matter. That may be risky. Another point may be that it signals to the DOJ that they may want to look for ways to extricate itself from the case quickly, because it's not going to go as easy as the DOJ has assumed from the beginning. The other issue may be that Dotcom and his legal team realized long ago that the court of public opinion probably matters more in the long run than the federal court system in the US.

To that end, of course, the paper has a second section, which has received most of the attention: all about the supposed corrupt process that brought about the indictment. When Megaupload hired Richard Amsterdam, he specifically noted that the details of the case suggested a typical "contract prosecution," and the paper seeks to lay out that argument clearly, highlighting the close relationship between the Obama Administration (mainly via VP Joe Biden) and MPAA boss Chris Dodd.

Chris Dodd’s jump from the U.S. Senate into the cockpit of the MPAA was an equivalent move. As the new Chairman and CEO of the MPAA, Chris Dodd improperly leveraged his friendship with Joe Biden to achieve the MPAA’s objectives. Former Senator Dodd’s relationship with the Vice President– who comes off manipulated, a cheerfully credulous facilitator – together with the Obama Administration’s ravenous hunger for campaign contributions, has given the MPAA absolute control over how the U.S. Department of Justice plays the game in enforcing copyright law. This capture is nowhere more clearly demonstrated than in the Megaupload/Kim Dotcom prosecution.

Frankly, while this section is getting the most attention, I actually find it to be the weakest and most poorly supported part of the paper, which would probably be more compelling without it. I don't doubt that the close connections between the MPAA and various folks in the DOJ and in the VP's office contributed to Megaupload being a target, but trying to make it out as anything more than that seems like a stretch. Yes, the MPAA complained regularly about Megaupload, and that clearly helped put a target on its back. But, it's quite likely that the over-eager folks at the DOJ ran with this one on their own. The MPAA (with the help of the press) had worked over time to paint Kim Dotcom as "Dr. Evil" of the copyright world. Everything about the process of taking down Megaupload screams of a bunch of feds who totally bought into the theatrical version of the MPAA's vision, without much effort to understand what was really happening. The myriad mistakes and sloppiness in the case really suggest that the DOJ assumed that the stories the MPAA told were so accurate that everything about this case would be a layup. The investigation, the indictment, the raid, the handling of evidence -- all of it was done in a sloppy way -- as if they expected no one would challenge any of it.

I'm sure there was influence and pressure that went into this, but painting it as a case where Chris Dodd called up Joe Biden and said, "Destroy Megaupload" is probably a massive exaggeration. Instead, it seems quite likely that MPAA folks just kept playing up the theatrical version of Kim Dotcom as evil (and, Dotcom himself actually helped promote this sort of view of himself at times as well...), and then the DOJ's imagination combined with its general over-aggressive nature towards any copyright issues just sort of took over from there.

Either way, the paper is definitely a worthwhile read. I'm sure a group of folks at the DOJ are taking their time reading through it quite carefully. I imagine that we'll eventually see their response in court.

Filed Under: chris dodd, copyright, corruption, criminal contributory infringement, indictment, ira rothken, joe biden, kim dotcom, richard amsterdam, whitepaper
Companies: megaupload

World's First Crowdsourced Whitepaper From The Insight Community

from the understanding-digital-nomads dept

Back in August we announced that, via the Insight Community, Dell was sponsoring a series of cases to create a crowdsourced whitepaper about the challenges, from a business and IT perspective, concerning the rise of so-called digital nomads. If you've been a member of the Insight Community, you've no doubt seen the cases. The best results from those cases have been running on a special blog on DigitalNomads.com, creating some really fascinating content. If you haven't been reading it, here's just a small sampling of some of the great posts we've seen:

• Tackling Three Key Issues In Balancing Work And Life by Zack Miller
• The CIA Model for Digital Nomads by Stephen Foskett
• Given Unfettered Liberty, Mobile Workers Will Excel by Matt Jansen
• The Five P's of the Digital Nomad Ethos by David Mould
• Mobility, Usability, and Disability by Michael Kramer
• Understanding The Difference Between Working Together And Interacting by Eric Samson
• How To Find Community As A Digital Nomad by Nate Westheimer
• Discovering The OFF Switch by Servaas Schrama

These are just a few of the examples of the content generated within the Insight Community and then used on the Digital Nomads blog. However, beyond just creating that content, the idea was to take it even further. This content has created a great compendium of knowledge -- building blocks -- for how to get the best out of being, managing or maintaining digital nomads. So, from that core content, we've begun crafting the world's first crowdsourced white paper.

We've been taking much of the early content, and have started to craft articles around it, and then place them in a wiki, to allow anyone to continue contributing and editing the product. The first of those articles, on What It Means To Be A Digital Nomad is now available, so please jump in and add your thoughts. We're also still running more cases on the topic to generate more content, and will be publishing more wiki articles for the whitepaper over the coming weeks. Once we feel the articles are somewhat stable, we'll try to put together a more finished version that can be downloaded as well. Thanks to everyone for participating and we look forward to doing similar projects in the future. If you're interested in sponsoring a similar endeavor, feel free to find out more and sign up to sponsor a case.

Filed Under: digital nomads, insight community, whitepaper
Companies: dell, floor64