Hugo Leonardo Barboza, Ariê Scherreier Ferneda, Liz Beatriz Sass
O presente artigo tem como objetivo analisar a garantia de autenticidade por meio de Non-Fungible Tokens e a (in)validade para a proteção de obras intelectuais, com especial enfoque às obras artísticas. A pesquisa foi desenvolvida por meio do método hipotético-dedutivo, lastreado na revisão bibliográfica, e se justifica em razão do crescente número de comunidades de artistas que aderem à exposição e venda de suas criações em galerias digitais e transacionam em um Blockchain. Em um primeiro momento, estudou-se a proteção da propriedade intelectual, destacando-se convenções internacionais sobre a temática, bem como as disposições da legislação brasileira; e, em segundo momento, foi estudado o conceito de artes digitais, para fins de avaliar, posteriormente, a (in)validade do registro das obras por meio de NFT’s. Como resultado da pesquisa, conclui-se que o NFT se apresenta como uma possível solução para garantia de autoria e autenticidade das produções no espaço cibernético, embora ainda restem dúvidas sobre a segurança que esta tecnologia efetivamente possa atestar.
Over the last decade, the application of digital technologies has been a special matter of interest in the legal profession. Smart contracts and blockchain technology are among the most interesting and potent developments encountered by the legal system. There are many potential applications of smart contracts. After much research conducted in that field, the law of obligations aspects of smart contracts seems clear. Smart contracts are not legally binding contracts per se. However, smart contracts may be legally binding if they fulfil obligations law requirements. Also, smart contracts may be used as an effective tool for contract enforcement. There is no need for special regulation but improvement of the general understanding of smart contracts and blockchain technology is necessary, especially among lawyers. However, an important issue that is yet undiscussed is the human rights aspect of smart contracts. The application of smart contracts raises concerns about potential violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Customs surveillance of intellectual property is an efficient way to quickly and effectively provide legal protection to the right-holder, as it allows to nip the infringements in the bud. Technology has drastically changed the means and mechanisms of customs enforcement, as it increases the possibilities of identifying and detaining goods infringing IPRs, and makes it more feasible to assess in advance where control is required. However, assessing in advance and acting when appropriate does not always match well with fundamental intellectual property principles (territoriality), global trade norms (freedom of transit), global intellectual property rules, and due process requirements. This chapter explores some of the challenges and opportunities brought by AI, big data and distributed ledger technologies to customs enforcement of IPRs. It looks at AI’s transformative influence on IP enforcement and the digitization and use of big data in customs control.
Rapid advancements in digital technologies and their accelerating adoption throughout all sectors of the economy have radically transformed our lives. Stepping through the looking glass of the digital economy and the nascent Web3, this article explores how new forms of tech-enhanced evidence – involving artificial intelligence, blockchain, drone, and extended reality technologies – are emerging. Building upon this backdrop, the article focuses on the influence of these new technologies on the subject of evidence in international arbitration.1 It examines the opportunities and risks presented by these technologies through various use-cases, considering their potential to enhance efficiency, accessibility, fairness, and due process. While recognizing the significance of tech-enhanced arbitration to meet the needs of the 21st century, the article underscores the importance of understanding the benefits and limitations of these technologies. It concludes that, although the technological advancements are essential, the human factor remains pivotal in upholding the fairness and legitimacy of the arbitral system.
Abstract The question whether digital assets such as cryptocurrencies are “property” as a matter of law has been the subject of academic debate almost since the inception of the bitcoin network in 2009. The question arises from the fact that such assets, and cryptocurrencies in particular, do not fit into traditional categories of property as understood by the common law, being neither “choses in possession” nor “choses in action”. However, following a series of decisions in the last couple of years, it now seems reasonably settled that this question will be answered in the affirmative, although no cases have so far reached the highest level of the courts. The consequences have yet to be worked out. One obvious consequence is that cryptocurrencies can be the subject of a trust. However, the unique features of digital assets give rise to a number of interesting problems, both theoretical and practical, on which there is little authoritative guidance.
JIPITEC 12 (2021) 2 - In this article, smart contracting meets Directive (EU) 2019/770 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services, and as the Directive (EU) 2019/771 regarding certain aspects of contracts for the sale of goods. Much has been written about smart contracting and the two directives. What has been missing, however, are contributions that explicitly address the question of whether the two directives are really “smart contracts ready”. The present article is intended to fill this gap and to serve as an incentive to take a closer look at this topic.
The attention paid to blockchain technology has always been shadowed by the ever-popular Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not the only life-altering outcome of the blockchain revolution. Each day we come across another useful aspect of blockchain technology: first, it was smart contracts, then initial coin offerings, then security token offerings and, since the beginning of March this year, there has been a lot of hype around non-fungible tokens (NFTs). While different digital art and collectibles are tokenized and sold for mind-boggling amounts, there are some legal questions, including regarding copyright law, that need to be tackled. This article will develop as follows: In Part II, we first describe the main characteristics of blockchain technology, and its important features that impact NFTs. Then, we consider where NFTs should be classified within the different groups of tokens. We define NFTs and consider why they are so popular nowadays and how they interact with smart contracts. In Part III, we discuss the legal implications of NFTs in general and with a focus on some problems that arise in copyright law mostly on the qualification of minting and selling and the consequences of purchasing an NFT.
The purpose of the present article is to gain an understanding of the opportunities and difficulties created by the introduction and development of the practice of network (smart) contracts. Our research methodology is based on a holistic set of principles and methods of scholarly analysis employed by modern legal science. It uses a dialectical method involving both general approaches (structural system method, formal logical method, analysis and synthesis of individual elements, individual features of concepts, abstraction, generalization, etc.) and particular methods (legal technical, systematic, comparative, historical, and grammatical methods, method of the unity of theory and practice, etc.). We analyze the views of lawyers and other specialists from Russia and abroad, legislative innovations in the field of digital technologies, the practice of blockchain-based smart contracts, and the main risks (whether legal, technological, operational, or criminogenic) of smart contracts for economic activities with a study of their causes. In the present-day situation, it is necessary to move from the legal definition of the smart contract and its legal and technological characteristics, advantages and disadvantages to the implementation of startups in a wide range of areas, especially business, public regulation, and social relations. Scholarly and information support for such processes will contribute to the development of industry, public administration and digital technology applications to improve the life of individual citizens and society as a whole. The introduction of smart contracts does not require the adoption of new laws or regulations. Instead, one should adapt and, possibly, modify existing legal principles at the legislative and judicial levels to pave the way for the use of smart contracts and other new technologies. The system of contract law provides a sufficient framework for regulating transactions without the introduction of any new legal categories. We propose approaches to the legal definition of the smart contract and identify a set of problems that must be solved at the legislative and technical legal levels in order to implement smart contracts effectively in different spheres of life.
For several years, almost everyone has been talking about blockchain. The underlying distributed ledger technology has become (in)famous as the technology behind cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ether. But what about blockchain and intellectual property like patents and copyright? Could this technology be used for the protection and enforcement of such rights? Which role can smart contracts play in this regard? This article focuses on questions concerning the requirements for provingthe protection of technical inventions as well as on the administration and exploitation of intellectual property rights. The latter could play an important rolefor intellectual property, which has not been registered or is not subject to registration, such as copyright. For trade secrets, a blockchain could be a useful tool for providing appropriate confidentiality measures. Last but not least, smart contracts in particular could be involved in connection with the transfer and, even more importantly, the licensing of intellectual property and mainly of software.
The advancement of technology brings tremendous challenges and opportunities to the legal industry. This article will examine the blockchain technology, in particular the decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) and its unique governance features compared with traditional companies. This article also intends to provide recommendations for law firms to prepare for the challenges brought by blockchain technology. Blockchain, challenges, decentralized autonomous organization, DAO, governance, law firm
Evidence management is crucial in the field of forensic science. Evidences obtained from a crime scene are important in solving the case and delivering justice to the parties involved. Hence, protecting these evidences from any form of alteration is of utmost important. Chain of Custody is the process which maintains the integrity of evidence. Inability to maintain the chain of custody will make the evidence inadmissible in court, eventually leading to the case dismissal. Digitalization of forensic evidence management system is a need of time as it is an environment friendly model. Blockchains are digitally distributed ledgers of transactions signed cryptographically in chronological order that are sorted into blocks and is completely open to anyone in the blockchain network. Hyperledger Fabric is a consortium blockchain framework created by the Linux foundation and is mainly used for enterprise use. Based on the concept of Hyperledger Fabric, present study aimed to create a framework and further propose an algorithm to implement Blockchain Technology to digitalize forensic evidence management system and maintain Chain of Custody.
On the issue of cryptocurrency as other property in civil law This article analyzes the current civil legislation of the Russian Federation, the practice of its application in the regulation of property relations. The authors consider cryptocurrency as another property in civil circulation and the features of its legal regime. The attribution of cryptocurrency to other property is possible within the framework of the current legislation, without creating new objects of civil rights with conflicts and disputes regarding their legal regime.
With the development of technology innovations it becomes possible to regulate relations between the parties through smart-contracts. Smart contracts are based on blockchain technology, which is a decentralized distributed ledger system consisting of a chain of computers connected to one server. This technology is so convenient for parties to the treaty, because it gives the participants of smart contract an opportunity to exchange property values without intermediaries such as notaries, guarantors, etc. It is to be noted that smart contracts are not resolved in most countries. Now in many countries, however, there is a formation of the legislative framework in the sphere of the smart contracts by considering a smart contract like an element of a legal transaction with the introduction of blockchain technology, which is explained by the desire to keep up with technical progress. There were some attempts in the International Private Law to conclude smart-contracts. As is well known the traditional question in the International Private Law is a conflict of law that is so popular now for smart contracts that using blockchain technology involve multiple jurisdictions. That’s why the choice-of-law issues in the regulation of relevant relations, including the projection concerning choice of law in those States where super-priority is adjusted for those innovations, requires further research. In this article the authors have analyzed the concept and essence of smart contracts (Smart Contracts), researched the problem of conflict of law, applicable to such contracts. In particular analysis focused specifically on the Rome I Regulation in the aspects of smart contract management. The paper also touches upon problematic aspects related to choice of law applicable to the smart contracts in Ukraine. In conclusion, the prospects for the use of smart contracts in International Private Law.
The aim of a contract is to provide legal certainty to the parties and to define the toolkit of remedies available in the event of a dispute. In modern business practice, the ultimate goal of a contract is to eliminate or reduce the possibility of legal liability; the issue of efficiency and effectiveness of contract implementation is not the primary goal. The impact of technology in the concept of contract creation, implementation and control has redefined the traditional approach which implies that contracts are written by "lawyers for lawyers". The contemporary practice bears witness of the correlation and intertwining of law and technology in a way that exceeds the scope and goes beyond the relationship between the regulator and the regulated object; in effect, technology becomes an organic element of law, its origin, application, control and development. A smart contract, as an example of the influence of technology in the field of regulating contractual relations, automatically activates the obligation, in accordance with the terms and conditions that the parties agreed upon and entered in the program code. Based on the Blockchain technology, a smart contract profoundly changes the paradigm of trust in a person with the paradigm of trust in a program code. The basic limitation of smart contracts is their capacity to convert complex legal concepts into the computational form readable by a program code. Thus, they cannot function in a pure form (entirely defined by a program code). The code needs to be complemented by text. The legal form that should bridge the gap between the smart contract and the traditional contract is the Ricardian agreement. The Ricardian contract uses the best from both worlds. On the one hand, the key terms of the contract are in software-readable program code format; on the other hand, more complex provisions that are not suitable for conversion into an algorithm are contained in additional instructions that are part of the Ricardian agreement. In terms of legal obligation, the Ricardian contract reflects exclusively and only the intention of the parties, without implying a legal obligation that could be formally established only by concluding the intended future agreement. As such, the Ricardian contract can play the role of a guide for the interpretation of the prospective agreement, which gives it a certain value in case of a dispute.
Legal norms contained in text-driven contracts (as well as in statutes and bylaws), which are written in natural language, can be subject of algorithmic conversion in certain phases of the contract circle (implementation, monitoring, control, interpretation). The application of the blockchain concept as a structural pattern opens the possibility of creating a code-driven contract with automated execution: a "smart" contract. Algorithmization is understood as a process which enables the text of the contract to be translated into a format that is understandable to software developers. To this end, the use of the following methodologies is proposed: design of a pseudocode, application of formal logic symbols and the use of flowcharts. Successful conversion of legal prose into a code calls for cooperation between lawyers and programmers. The framework of that cooperation is the establishment of the so-called "Legal Expert System" (LES). Originally conceived by lawyers, LES is a program which allows the algorithm to solve the problem of contract execution. Contract algorithmization should convert contracts from prose to a code, while preserving contract validity and efficiency. For the time being, smart contracts cannot regulate commercially complex scenarios; thus, the de lege lata application of smart contracts as a complete replacement for traditional (analogous) contracts is excluded. A potential object of algorithmization are the primary instructions aimed at executing the characteristic performance of the contract. Contract algorithmization is an ongoing process, which is here to stay. The significance of this process is indisputable but its scope, dynamics and assumptions are still only partially defined and tested. The necessary condition (but hardly a sufficient one) is to legitimize the conception of a contract as an algorithm in the process of defining contractual provisions. Further development of this concept will depend on the functioning of other elements in the environment where code-driven contracts would be used and, above all, on the commercial response to the entire process of contract algorithmization. In effect, in order to be widely applied, contract algorithmization must become a commercially viable activity.