Blockchain Papers

Emily Behzadi

No abstract is available for this record.

Paul Torremans

The DSM Directive preserves, on the one hand, the public domain, by restricting copyright in faithful reproductions of public domain works. On the other hand, there are copyright opportunities for digital art and non-fungible tokens. The Directive also creates opportunities for preservation and digitization for cultural heritage institutions. There are opportunities there that can be put to good and productive use in the interest of all parties involved. Extended collective licensing and measures for out-of-commerce works can also play a role here. And moral rights will not be a hindrance in that respect if industry standards of the digital era are observed. It is therefore important to continue and to strengthen the dialogue between the cultural heritage institution community on the one hand and the copyright and related rights community on the other hand.

Andrew C. Michaels

No abstract is available for this record.

Miša Bajčetić

The paper aims at determining the utility of NFTs within the current EU framework of copyright, specifically from the authors' perspective. The issues of technical feasibility and scale of adoption remain beyond the scope of the paper; the focus lies rather on the legal aspects, particularly the case law of the CJEU. For authors, the NFT landscape is currently filled with potential economic benefits, as well as perils. With this in mind, the paper anticipates future legislative and judicial interventions in the new area. The paper's answer to whether NFTs could be relevant for copyright law is a resounding "yes", potentially allowing the effortless dissemination of content to finally work in the authors' favor, instead of incurring enforcement costs. Interestingly enough, the answer is justified with the example of tokenized internet memes.

Ayomide Awoyemi

No abstract is available for this record.

Elli Kraizberg

Abstract The viability of exponentially growing non-fungible token (NFT) market is evaluated by identifying potential value-generating mechanisms that can be rationalized. After identifying the value-generating mechanisms underlying the positive values of NFTs, this study establishes a pricing model for NFTs that follows a continuous-time financial framework. As NFTs are claimed to securitize “ownership rights short of use”, and as such they may potentially serve as a substitute for the need to rely replace the reliance on the legal protection provided by intellectual property rights (IPRs). Considering this issue, this study evaluates the likelihood that NFTs will replace existing mechanisms that protect producers’ rightful claim to use their assets or the need to apply the legal code that governs IPRs. The financial condition for this potential shift is derived for a category of assets whose use or consumption does not reduce supply as the notion of scarcity does not apply.

Vicent Sus

Proof-of-Stake (PoS) algorithms, implemented as foundational components of the consensus mechanism of distributed ledgers, are defective cryptosystems by nature. This paper presents intuitive arguments for why PoS, by trying to improve the energy efficiency of Proof-of-Work (PoW) when implemented as a Sybil control mechanism in distributed ledgers, introduces a set of significant new flaws. Such systems are plutocratic, oligopolistic, and permissioned.

Mark Fenwick, Paulius Jurčys

No abstract is available for this record.

Ifeanyi E. Okonkwo

Abstract The invention of disruptive technologies broadens the horizon of opportunities for intellectual property owners. The very idea of selling copyright works in a digital space and using the same to form a digital currency is disruptive. This is one opportunity Non-Fungible Token (NFT) offers. But that disruptiveness raises certain questions and provoke the consciousness to wonder if NFTs are a form of intellectual property, or whether NFT would shift the paradigm of copyright law as we know it. Governments through her agencies are also caught in the unrestlessness of deciphering what NFT means and whether it holds any value for intellectual property. This article will address the relationship between NFT and copyright, the forseeable problems and solutions, and how NFTs are channels for intellectual property commercialisation.

Erik Schäfer

This chapter examines the relevance of artificial intelligence (AI) for construction disputes, focusing on LegalTec related to AI, machine learning, Distributed Ledger Technology (blockchain), Integrated Engineering or Construction ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems and Building Information Modeling (BIM). Construction ERP and BIM use (virtual) central storage of all project data in databases that can be queried in real time and track all project related activities, which can also be more easily correlated by the operators. They create massive amounts of data in machine readable and standardized formats with potential for use in machine learning, AI and predictive technologies. If one considers the complexity, duration, the associated cost of most construction disputes and the often-voiced need in the construction industry for swifter resolution this kind of reduction of issues to be decided and the simplification concerning the establishment of facts seem to indicate that there should be a sufficiently great market for such functionalities that operate at the pre-legal dispute level.

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.

윤영진

Recently, digital artworks based on NFT (Non-Fungible Token) have often been sold at high prices, drawing a lot of attention. It is time to carefully examine whether NFT is an important technological means to bring new life to the digital art trade and copyright market, or is it just a mirage caused by some fanatics and irrational overheating. Therefore, this study examines the impact of NFT on the IP industry. To help understand NFT, the technologies underlying the creation and transaction of NFT, such as Blockchain, Bitcoin, and Ethereum, are explored. And based on this understanding, what NFT is and why it is creating a craze, the concept, characteristics, creation and transaction method of NFT, utilization and its limitations are reviewed. Transactions through NFT are expected to cause various confusion in the area of intellectual property law. In conjunction with digital transformation, it will accelerate the ‘digitization of assets’ and deepen the separation of ownership and copyright over digital assets. The conflict between ownership and copyright is expected to develop into the question of whether the doctrine of rights exhaustion is applied to digital works and whether the exercise of copyright can be restricted. Also, due to the decentralized nature of NFT, the role of intermediaries who mediate creators and consumers will be reduced, and it seems necessary to discuss whether it is appropriate to apply the current online service provider exemption scheme to the responsibilities of NFT trading site. In addition, in the patent and trademark system, it is expected that a problem will arise whether transactions through NFTs can be subsumed into ‘practice’ under the Patent Act or ‘use’ under the Trademark Act. And as NFT is used as a technical means to authenticate the ownership of digital assets, it is expected to become a catalyst for making the fandom industry and game industry larger. It is time for regulators and lawyers to take creative approaches and new perspectives to become laws and systems that play a role in helping science and technology can be used for humans, not as a means of hindering development and innovation.

Pınar Çağlayan Aksoy, Zehra Özkan Üner

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.

Inesa Shumilo, Vladislava Serhiivna Ovcharenko, Karima Shodiivna Filipchenko

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.

Marcelo Corrales Compagnucci, Mark Fenwick, Stefan Wrbka

Smart contracts-self-executed, autonomous agreements in the form of computer code hosted on a blockchain-are, according to many observers, poised to disrupt the theory and practice of contracting. The perceived advantages of smart contracts are manifold. They can facilitate the performance and execution of agreements without the necessity of intermediaries and are said to provide better security, enforcement and verification systems than traditional contracts. Moreover, they seem to be immutable, irrevocable and cost-efficient. This makes smart contracts an attractive and convenient option for many different types of agreement, particularly in a business context. <br/><br/>A smart contract is a tamper-proof, digital agreement that runs on a decentralised blockchain. As such, smart contracts have two obvious advantages over traditional arrangements. First, smart contracts are shared records, meaning that the parties do not need to keep a personal copy. This is a significant advantage, especially for modern companies where departments operating as silos may have conflicting working procedures resulting in no single or reliable record of truth. <br/><br/>Second, smart contracts are reliable, and execution can be relied upon to a greater degree than in the past. In traditional agreements, the deal might not be implemented as initially agreed by the parties, either due to a choice or mistake. Smart contracts operate in the blockchain environment where they are executed exactly as written and do not require any approval at each step. If the predetermined conditions are fulfilled, then the agreement is performed automatically. <br/><br/>Today, many transactions include a third party to handle the counter party risk that another party defaults on their obligations. The parties may be reluctant to perform their obligations if there is no guarantee that the counter party will reciprocate. One way to think about the emergence of platforms, such as Uber or Airbnb, is that they provide structural mechanism to solve this problem of counter party risk. <br/><br/>Blockchain's decentralised infrastructure, however, generates and guarantees trust without the need for intermediaries. According to advocates of these technologies, blockchain replaces trusted third parties with an open and secure protocol that all parties can trust. And, crucially, neither party can control or change the contents of the blockchain ledger as it is decentralised. Central servers are replaced with a decentralised network of computers that record all transactions in the shared ledger. In this way, distributed computing ensures the ledger is always accurate, and the decentralised network keeps the ledger secure. <br/><br/>As such, smart contracts are a scripting language overlaid on the blockchain that enables transactions on a blockchain that mirror 'real life' contracts by defining if/then conditions. For example, if an asset hits a certain price on a specific date, then a payout should be made to the other party (or parties) to the contract. A smart contract developer could programme the contract conditions according to any specifications. The if/then parameters are then tied to inputs and outputs of the smart contract. To take a simple example, consider a smart contract in the case of a car loan. If the borrower misses a payment (tracked via a blockchain-like technology) then the contract/code would not allow the use and operation of the car, ie, the contract would be automatically 'enforced ' via network technologies that disable the vehicle, rather than through the use of a third party. Such contracts may produce efficiency, timing and performance improvements as a result of the automation of the contract's terms. This automation is achieved by computer code, which controls the automated performance in the context of an Internet of Things environment where digital devices are interconnected. <br/><br/>As this simple example shows, a smart contract utilises code to execute an agreement. In addition, the term 'smart contract ' is also often used to refer to traditional text-based contracts in which the ordinary language text references the use of such a 'code-only contract' to effect some (but not necessarily all) of the provisions. <br/><br/>While smart contracts can be applied in many different situations, they are still in an early phase of development-they are a relatively new and untested technology and the range of possible and effective use cases is still being worked out. At present, the actual tasks that smart contracts can perform are relatively basic and straightforward. However, as the adoption of blockchain-based platforms and applications accelerates, the expectation is that smart contracts will become increasingly sophisticated and capable of handling more complex and diverse transactions. <br/><br/>However, the deployment of smart contracts in the real world still needs further testing. The relative immaturity of the technology makes them potentially vulnerable to hacking. The lack of regulation is also a bottleneck for the development of more sophisticated forms of contract. This means that we need a more integrated or interdisciplinary approach to such contracts. There are still multiple concerns to be resolved relating to the technology, business models, appropriate markets, consumers and the law. Moreover, such contracts inevitably raise regulatory issues that need to be addressed by policymakers. Several countries have already started to develop new regulatory approaches, as legal commentators identify issues with such agreements. <br/><br/>Addressing the many challenges created by smart contracts requires going beyond a single disciplinary perspective or frame of reference. In particular, integration of technological, business and legal issues is crucial. This edited volume brings together a series of contributions by leading scholars and practitioners currently working in this space to examine the main issues that are driving the development of smart contracts, as well as the current response of key stakeholders in technology, business, government and the law. As such, the book explores the critical technical, business and legal challenges created by these potentially game-changing technologies and attempts to devise sound practical solutions in a broader scope regarding the functional and non-functional requirements of such contracts.

Ifeanyi E. Okonkwo

No abstract is available for this record.

Andrés Guadamuz

Dr Andres Guadamuz is Reader in Intellectual Property Law, University of Sussex. This article This article tackles various questions regarding non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and copyright, including whether an author can use an NFT to transfer copyright, several applications of tokens as digital rights management, and the issue of potential copyright infringement in NFTs. These questions are analysed from a UK perspective, specifically looking at cases from England and Wales and Scotland, while also covering a few relevant Court of Justice of the European Union decisions. This is a relatively recent technology, which will require a lengthier technical explanation to analyse the legal issues that are raised. In some instances, the public perception will be dealt with as well, as it has become evident that there is considerable misunderstanding not only about what an NFT really is but also about the ownership and copyright issues that surround the technology. The article analyses the use of NFTs for digital rights purposes, particularly the transfer of rights, and while assignment by electronic is it is not whether an NFT can transfer to copyright it is the of article that the of a not copyright, there be a to the In a by considerable to a potential copyright in is for use of but is also as an in in is and it for considerable of a for in it of the in is an that the with and that be a non-fungible of the NFTs are the in the and technology. This not it not for the that the that the NFT transfer not only the ownership of the digital but the be the to the This the of and several legal questions as to whether be copyright is in the of a of an but also there the that to and in a to the of the The the that of and that only the of the but not of the The from The is the in a of that are legal questions regarding the copyright and NFTs. an a of a by it and it an of a as as an NFT for with the the is an use it to transfer copyright ownership a it a an NFT of a it This article will questions from a UK perspective, specifically looking at cases from England and and Scotland, while also covering a few relevant of the Court of Justice of the European Union This is a relatively recent technology, which will require a lengthier technical explanation to analyse the legal issues In some instances, the public perception will be dealt with as well, as it has become evident that there is considerable misunderstanding not only about what an NFT really is but also about the ownership and copyright issues that surround the technology. NFTs are not to copyright, and in some are to legal in of technical will the copyright also will some of the issues about the technology. about This will a to the of but is a that is not of about the of from various is not the of the to and the will be to NFTs at The from the of to the use of tokens for to the of that it for to from is to will not be the of of NFTs with the considerable of and which the of and as is not the of to in as by there is a in the of what is a and it can be in to copyright as it will become NFTs require a technical explanation the legal what the is are also of to a explanation of what the is and it what is an to tokens and as it will be that is a is a and which and public of by in an The is which that can and can an there are various there by a of that are to the will be about the as it is the it to but there are of the of is that of the of a is a digital of that is the are various of and can the a in the is a of which as an of the and can be The is in the that with the of tokens a of as The the for are by it not what are to be as and non-fungible are that are a a a use a as are that be relevant to copyright, as a for ownership transfer This for the will be tokens with digital is of an that can be in some digital as a a a The use of the NFT in the is a of of which in of NFT in and it tokens a In the of an including and digital it will be there are various of but the is a that that has with a digital of the that is is to the in as it is of the of the NFT This will be for the legal in the will an NFT as of a a are in which can that the technical and the of an NFT be to an of the in to use to digital can be an NFT in can use the to a that that can be to the This is that are and can at the and that is a with a and a of and the is and with the The NFT is a of that is the that various of The that be and some that are The to the NFT is a as the which is the of the the is the is a that can be in the a The of in the it there can only be in the with the of and the NFT is are that can be in the is the of the which the with in NFTs is the of a to the can be is the NFT is not the NFTs of the to in the of a of In a as an NFT that a a digital to a that is the in the of a the and is a digital that only to the In is what the NFT it is to be In can as of the as can the and the and the some considerable technical a NFTs are a are of NFT that the of an a that can to an to the in some instances, also to for the This is the to that will the The and and it is are to the an which a The is to the to the and an are to to in some what a as are for the NFT has several in it can be to can as but it can also be to and NFTs. is a that in the and is the is a by and can also be to is a be it a the and are to the The NFT can be it has in the and the the NFT NFT it can be the NFT is not the it is the that the of and is to that the NFT can as the of the the of the the copyright of the and as as The and the are the as are specifically to the and the to the be that the is not the and it is not a of the NFT by the of a that to the This will be in what the while the to the NFT and it to the the NFT is not the it is the that it to the is an are the as an is as NFTs to a of a This is as the NFT is not a it is a of a the ownership is not of the but ownership of the is of NFT the is in to the These are and are to as can only be and with the the NFT ownership of the are not that the to the in The for is that the of the is and is by In the of a of is at The of from to at the of to the in by to from the with the the it to the of is the of is become there are of the with of and that of be as as at the of the there is use in the to which is the NFTs of The can be by a can also be a and a an the of NFTs from a technical perspective, be for not about copyright at the an NFT is a that has a that not be to copyright be a the public as will be that is to can be an but the is only in the of the the of a of a and in there is with there is misunderstanding it to the ownership of an NFT and what it is an of of the NFT by and of as an The in the of which to that what is is the and not a digital of the for the of is the and a of In an NFT of in a which in The of several the as the and not a of the for the as an NFT for with the that the The and the is the not it for not the but an NFT of The is to the that are for NFT of a of a by digital for at while an NFT of a of in the for to that are of for what to a and a of and of but in is what NFTs This is the of that copyright is a NFTs as and not copyright are several copyright in some NFTs. are in which a be the questions of copyright which will be dealt with NFTs not a transfer of there are a few in which the to the an transfer of copyright ownership in the to in copyright the as copyright for a that the a to and is in the few are with copyright transfer in is an NFT that a copyright transfer of transfer in transfer in The to is whether a as a transfer of The and of copyright is of in with of the This that the of copyright not the with rights will the the for by and there is some for some of with to the of there is the of it is a for to what the will to the transfer of copyright, the UK and a copyright assignment that is by of the In the an assignment of copyright that the ownership of a will be to the The copyright assignment can be for of the ownership but also can be rights, for the author can rights to an of the author can to a a is of as it can the and of rights what and is that electronic can be to while a copyright assignment is not a as the relevant and with to and can what can be a it is also that there are in can be by a of as the of what is is to be to and of in a the the of what is has to various of from an electronic to an as copyright the of what is a has also in a has to be to the assignment can be and in electronic it to the This to be to in some as the assignment is in to the the is also to the use of electronic there is a The electronic in the UK is the which an electronic as in electronic which is to with in electronic and which is by the to of the that an electronic not be legal and as in legal the that it is in an electronic in is a of of as by the an can be a it the of it a as as the of the are and to various electronic it is not the of that is to an in the an NFT is a that the the can the is a that only the has The of England and Wales has in of what is a not only for a of but also for various electronic has also a recent by the UK looking specifically at as and that there is to that not be as electronic for legal in a has be a digital not it is in the to the use of a to a copyright be to what is as a legal that are by the of a This is a and there is the use of and as as it is that the is to a copyright assignment to what and the of a the of a and the of a be to the of an of that in there be a of as to whether a in the is regarding the of as there is that as of rights This a legal there be that the technical author can use an NFT to transfer ownership of a digital and also a in and with a to the that there has a transfer of This is the of some that are copyright transfer as of The is to what a that will with copyright in to a of copyright an NFT be in of digital rights in at some as potential copyright including and to a are also the use of NFTs specifically in the of the as potential of rights and with for digital the of NFTs has of the use has the transfer of the with a few to it is to NFTs that is not to that the potential is not In some NFTs be as a of as the as a of a in an NFTs also as some of and This a few in with technical and the can and can that is by the This that can of ownership and is the a from that not This is not an it will be in the it is as is an NFT the NFTs for and as of for to a the be an of a of the is with a copyright but is an the author has to there is an ownership in the it not that it is NFTs for with some of NFT but that not with of to in few are as which to a there is a of The has the NFT some of the and as and is not a but a there as a of and is a of that also as and which also in and are as and with a of as and with is in a that has some of and it is that it be for to an it it from an This is what is as in which a can a it as it from the about In it is to a of a to be a legal that a to an by copyright, can be as with an This a of the NFT at the of not in the of an This not that a not but that it is not to be is for an author to the of an NFT a to use the for a of of is the which as an NFT in for the of a of the the be to and the This that the is for the and not for the that the NFT to a is a of in the and the a to use of and for of the in the not the NFT The of the of an to and the for the of the that can ownership of the the NFT is not the it can be to ownership of the NFT to to the that can the The NFT is of the of the The of a is a in some of the NFT that some an NFT that can and to in The for of NFTs is the to be and the copyright will to the a to the and not to the is in the This the of for a The NFT has that a is not ownership of rights and not a The use of an NFT is to for a This is an the is really a for can that the use of NFTs for copyright assignment and is the of the to for what is is a of what of the and the of the there is that are NFTs at and is that are to of the an author and a at an the will in a the will transfer to the the will be from the to the it will it is is the can in a and NFT for of the in can a that a of the The of is that that is from the of the there will be of the from the from it from and will be to the of the for the NFT is not a transfer of rights the of rights to the as as as a and a of the transfer of the of for a and the author a of is not the will in to it for but it is an in NFTs. in which NFTs can in the of is in the of an in the to a of the the will a of that for as and the of but and In some is a technical a for of the is not to is to as it in a that the that for the the author also copyright the with the in the UK as by the which is in and The only to that from an that and the is the of the of the a a for a of to a while a in of The are also at The of the author the NFT is an that an NFT and the at will that is not to the of the and is also to the of the of the are to the various of the technology, with with and digital rights in The only is whether the can the This is to be is that of a at at the of the has in the of and the of be to the that what an NFT is not the but a of a the are the of NFTs to with and for a of the to the of the digital with a to a with a to a of the digital rights to be an of the the potential for copyright infringement a the of NFTs. the that about the technology, as as the that are for there is considerable for legal in This is not and are a few of copyright infringement and a at there the in some that NFTs and there an of in the public from the in that an are with of of potential infringement of the of the from the The legal copyright infringement is in the and In with the which by The is only a with but in that be an NFT of with the has is the copyright in the copyright a the and the is at the of it is to analyse at an there is that it several particularly whether there is copyright infringement in the of a This to be an to there be some of copyright infringement in the of an NFT that really to analyse what an NFT and it is is to an NFT is of a is it really to that and it to the is a of the technical of what is an NFT NFTs are a that has with a digital in a digital and it to of a and a The as a that in the as has The that is is a to the a copyright perspective, it is to the of an be copyright the NFT is not the but a of that with a the not be a of the an be looking at some of to the will to that there to be there are that be the of the rights of the author there is a and the of the a of has will of for of at whether there is a the can that a is from an in a technical to to a digital of the to an a can that the the of a from has and be there not be a and the as there is that in the of a the is to the of whether a has in in a the will the of the NFT is and to the there is of the and it be copyright as it has is the of the of NFTs are it is evident that there is of the as the is that not the at it is that with the is to while the NFT is there be a a with will that the for as it is can an of a as an that the rights of the the rights of the author are the rights of and public to the public and to of the of to will and to the at potential in the of the it has is an the is is not NFTs are an is to the and of the can various of the that are only from a of the to the which is by the with a the that has not the digital at the NFT of that be for digital of the to be for it be a digital of a use an that has the of a as there is to an of the also be for the the to an as a of the by the by a of a at a a at a a from a This be an a of a that the of the only a and not to the in the there is from that to the The is not a of the in of the there is of the in the an NFT be an is in the in and can only with an and The with in the an of a be a of a it a in which the is in in to a an be it a while for a an is by an a of the is to the of a with of relatively of it a to an NFT to be at whether an NFT is in some a of a to In cases there is some of of a there is a of the the looking at from is the of a from a not copyright, as in a of is not an of a in that not copyright in a by a with the a of to a and the of the by This to be an infringement by by that the an of a of what is an the is at to the and can a of the by the The is not of an the has to the to to an that the is an it can be to the but not to be the in of infringement in the of a be to analyse whether the NFT be a to the the to as a a to a NFT be to be a to the and to in at the technical of what is in a it has of the that is in the of an NFT is that the will to the digital that to the This is not but it is This is a to a to a The relevant for the is that the is not by the by the at some is the has a to the can be NFTs also to the can be as and In the and the can the to a as as it by looking at the by a as is to that the not it the be which is a is relevant for the of a to the public is that NFTs a not be the NFT not be In a it be to a a a the and it has to the there is about the of but it is to be of what the a to an of the The of the be a copyright some of the it be to has as a that as a of are in to the infringement be the NFT is a to the of the to that be a legal is that to an as in a is a to the public and can the of a relevant is the an the The that it to of and it a to the that there a as of the are to not from an is to use cases as to the in an and it is not to the of the of as it is the with as to an be to be The has with the of in recent and while some can a few The has that the and a of the to to the public to a of the to the has in a the of the author and the of the public to In the that the by of a not be a to a as the by the In the that the of a by the of the also not a to the the has become with recent decisions. In the to a from a to a in a in which of from The from the cases as it is that the is and that the is for The is that in the the about whether be cases with to the public dealt with the potential of of which can be to and be relevant to NFT and it is to that an NFT that a to an of the be to be a to the public in some particularly it is evident that the has of the The is as the is for there is a to be there to the public as the from a that is as it has the is in the that the is it not be as to as the is the be in a that has not with the This is The be to copyright of an NFT with of an NFT with In to the has to some of the technology, and require the and the of the cases with are to and the be that is a to the is to a relatively in which the of what has not In the to in a to the and it that the of various the not to a of technical as of the particularly the not be in a it of that a and it is not to the it is to the the public is not to while some are in and that are for as are by the that a of in the a of of NFTs that to the potential of copyright by the to the of the to for the an of a not in copyright is not to with copyright infringement in NFTs the are some tokens can be by the NFTs are and in to The can the also a in which the is NFT NFT The is not the NFT but the of to the by a to The also the the a and as a of the a to the and a to the is the a to the and a of the the be to for infringement it the NFT This that NFT regarding copyright infringement of as as a for and The is of the the in of the of and to the that has in a that copyright that rights of infringement in with the will and of infringement and will the and with to of copyright infringement be to of as as These to well, and copyright infringement are to analyse the potential by while to that be but at the to be by the by a for NFT at the of of the the with the is of NFT in a it to a will be of the and of the can be but of the cases has that of the of a which is of of the the the of has also the in to some of a to the and the the of a it the of the is to to the that NFT copyright will be dealt with at the article has analysed the copyright and NFTs from a legal perspective, some of the questions about the of tokens and in copyright of the of is to at NFTs from a perspective, it is not to some about the of technology, it copyright it of rights in the The of NFT copyright in the be that in some NFTs are with are as a to and at the of legal as copyright is the is that of potential copyright infringement in the NFT and from legal to the to The in is to with the for and In a it to by the of is the of of the is that of by non-fungible digital for The is that there is in are can a and can to but the NFT is as a of the that has by the in it NFTs are as of the and not of the there is ownership transfer in with a few a the for copyright is there to be a in some that an NFT is a digital to the an NFT is to a of a of the and not the at from the of the for some there are that is a of the copyright is as for the author it the the of of copyright can the of of the as to of The of of a has at the of the copyright of recent the of the of is only a at as an of the at copyright as potential to as a to the of the of is and can the of that the of a the of copyright as of an can NFTs in for the of the is that in the in NFTs is as to the by it has the the by an NFT is the NFT not as a to and the it as a that the can The is to for the the is for the and that can be copyright NFTs the it be to the public in a of NFTs to be in with copyright at from the of for the copyright are to be This is what is to in copyright as The of a can the and a in of the not use and of the in The are and for not which of the are as are there is also a non-fungible to copyright In some copyright as a of the of a by an author by the by the an by a These can be and the of the of copyright These also as non-fungible of the a a a

George Milunovich

Major cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and etherium rely on the computationally expensive and energy inefficient Proof of Work (PoW) consensus mechanism to validate transactions and secure their networks. In response to such concerns digital coins that implement more energy efficient algorithms, e.g. Proof of Stake (PoS), have started to grow in popularity and some PoW based coins are planning to switch to PoS. We investigate linkages and transmission of price shocks across fourteen PoW and PoS/Other powered digital assets. PoW cryptocurrencies appear to be more strongly connected within the network of digital coins than are PoS/Other digital currencies. On average PoW coins export more uncertainty to other cryptocurrencies, while assets in both groups import similar levels of risk. PoS/Other cryptocurrency stakeholders need to be aware of the impact that PoW cryptocurrencies can exert on the riskiness of their assets.

David S. Levine

The unprecedented Covid-19 global pandemic has brought to the forefront many challenges associated with exclusive rights, information sharing, affordability of medical treatment, and innovation. As I wrote for STAT in July1, it has raised questions like how we provide effective diagnostics, treatments and vaccines quickly and safely to the public. More specifically, how do we ensure that sufficient quantities of these health products are produced, that they are affordable, and that they are equitably distributed globally? Trade secrets play an enormous role in vaccine development, as well as the creation of diagnostics and treatments. From information like genomic data, to biologic resources, manufacturing know-how and negative information like research dead-ends, trade secrets pervade the battle against Covid.2 In that sense, finding Covid vaccines is no different from any other innovation schema, with trade secrecy operating alongside and in conjunction with patents, copyrights, and trade marks on the incentive side of the ledger. However, in the Covid space, there are a few significant differences. At their centre is the basic issue of whether the sharing of certain trade secret information would be a net benefit for the world, resulting in more rapid development and expanded supply capacity of and/or more affordable vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics. These are open questions, but there are good reasons to think that the answers would be “yes” because of three public health priorities: speed, adequacy of supply, and affordability. While the development of a Covid vaccine may be similar in process and methodology to any other vaccine development process, the continual loss of life, scale of economic impact, and general rendering of lives untenable, puts an enormous premium on speed. Speed, however, must not come at the cost of sacrificing oversight, safety, and efficacy. Therefore, in the interest of public health, there may be trade secrets, like discovery of vaccine development process dead-ends, that should be shared with competitors, researchers, and governments in order to speed development by avoiding time-wasting re-invention of the wheel. To be sure, sharing valuable secret information may lead to less overall revenue for an individual manufacturer, but does not automatically mean that the endeavour would be unprofitable. Pooling of resources could lead to safer and more effective vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics, which would create higher demand than a more suspect product. Given the billions of vaccine doses required by a desperate world, not to mention the related diagnostics and treatments, there should be plenty of revenue earned across related industry sectors. Moreover, because this is a global public health crisis, there is a moral and ethical mandate to assure that not only are Covid vaccines and treatments affordable for all, but that nationalism does not render them available first (or only) to wealthy countries and individuals. Unfortunately, nationalism has reared its ugly head in this battle, as governments vie for exclusive deals with pharmaceutical manufacturers, while the manufacturers seek the most lucrative results for their efforts. As Nature recently reported, “Wealthy countries have struck deals to buy more than two billion doses of coronavirus vaccine in a scramble that could leave limited supplies in the coming year. Meanwhile, an international effort to acquire vaccines for low- and middle-income countries is struggling to gain traction.”3 In countries like the United States, where the dominant utilitarian theory calls for intellectual property law to create incentives for innovation, there is no corollary that requires intellectual property owners to earn every last dime from their rights. Public health concerns can predominate. However, before one condemns these true statements as too extreme, it is important to note that they may make the point too strongly by overstating the costs of information sharing. Affordability through sharing trade secret information (and thereby driving down research and development costs) does not have to come at the price of profits. As I have explained in the articles cited above, voluntary licensing can be cost-prohibitive, although the possibility exists for less costly licensing and technology transfer through the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP) and the Medicines Patent Pool, if utilized. Additionally, there are no legislatively codified compulsory avenues for requiring non-registration and non-clinical trial trade secrets to be shared with competitors, much less civil society groups, or other “watchdog” or advocacy entities. Nonetheless, the gravity of the crisis requires creative thinking, bold measures, and a certain amount of policy risk-taking (which, as I’ve previously explained, is supported by the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)). Compulsory trade secret licensing of relevant trade secrets, in which trade secret owners are compensated for their investments and compelled sharing (assuming that the existence of a trade secret is proven, a separate necessary step), should now be considered. Unfortunately, creating a compulsory trade secret licensing mechanism would require legislative action, which would likely be contentious and time-consuming. Therefore, the short-term route to information sharing might have to come from global efforts by civil society groups and like-minded public officials, as well as the public itself, to convince researchers and manufacturers to share necessary information in the interest of global public health and welfare. While it may be true that industry would like to control their trade secrets and maximize profits, public concern and the general policy aversion to monopoly pricing that is baked into intellectual property law theory could be brought to bear in finding an industry consensus around access to and sharing of trade secrets. If adopted for purposes of addressing this unprecedented public health crisis, voluntary trade secret information sharing and/or compulsory trade secret licensing could be extended to any number of other areas where trade secrecy has been a barrier to more rapid information sharing and innovation, from climate change, to energy production, to the next pandemic. Because empirical studies have shown that few blanket modes of behaviour or application apply to trade secrets broadly, and because trade secret law usage is considered on an individualized and sector level, robust trade secret information sharing and/or compulsory trade secret licensing could become a logical advance in open innovation and equitable-access modelling on an individual sector, product, or process basis. The time for considering how to share trade secrets, in the interest of global public health and all of our lives, is now.

Eugene Lim

Dr Eugene C Lim is a faculty member at the City University of Hong Kong School of Law. This article Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have, in recent years, triggered a dramatic paradigm shift in how we conceive of authorship and creation. Intelligent machines, such as those powered by the new GPT-3 neural network technology, are capable of generating expressions, composing text, performing translations and producing other ‘creative’ outputs once thought to be beyond the ability of computers. This article will focus on intelligent AI applications (or ‘creative avatars’) that are programmed to replicate the ‘style’ of a human author (such as Shakespeare, Rembrandt or JK Rowling), and the regulatory challenges flowing from the generation of...

irina viktorovna ermakova

The subject of this research is the legal norms that regulate legal relations in the context of application of blockchain technology and smart contracts based on it in the area of online advertising and intellectual property. The object of this research is the social relations emerging in the indicated spheres. Analysis is conducted on the concepts and characteristics of blockchain technology and smart contracts. The author also reviews some controversial theoretical and practical issues, such as terminology, legal nature of blockchain, smart contracts, and related concepts. Examples are provided of the currently existing blockchain platforms and services premised on them. The novelty of the conducted research consists in focusing on the relevant problems that emerge in the conditions of network economy in such spheres as online advertising and intellectual property. On the example of blockchain platforms functioning in the indicated spheres, the author reveals the problems the can be resolved using such technologies. The author also underlines certain practical difficulties that arise in the process of application of blockchain and smart contracts, particularly associated with the absence of legal definition of a number of concepts. The examples of corresponding court decisions are provided. A proposal is made on the need for consolidation on the legislative level of definitions of such concepts as &amp;ldquo;blockchain&amp;rdquo;, &amp;ldquo;smart contract&amp;rdquo;, &amp;ldquo;cryptocurrency&amp;rdquo;, and &amp;ldquo;token&amp;rdquo;.

Jose Gustavo Prieto Munoz, Annamaria Viterbo, Alberto Oddenino

selected authors from around the world presented their research into the impact of blockchain technology on international law

Daeyul Baek

데이터 경제(data economy)의 시대를 맞이하고 있음에도 데이터를 둘러싼 사법(私法)상의 법률관계는 아직도 불분명하다. 현재의 통설은 데이터는 민법상 물건(민법 제98조)에 해당하지 않으므로 물권법이 적용될 수 없다고 보고 있으며, 그 대신 계약법 내지 불법행위법으로의 포섭을 통해 그 법률관계를 규명하려 시도하고 있다. 그러나 데이터에 관한 법적 규율을 설계함에 있어서는 데이터의 종류 내지 유형별 차이점을 고려하여야 함에도 통설은 이를 간과하고 있다. 특히 최근에는 암호화폐(cryptocurrency)를 비롯하여 ① 그 자체로 경합적이며(경합성), ② 일정한 주체의 사용&#8901;수익을 배제할 수 있고(배제성), ③ 특정한 타인의 행위에 의존하지 않고 존립할 수 있어(존립성) 유체물과 동등한 수준으로 관리가 가능한 &#65378;유체물-동등 데이터&#65379;가 출현하였는바, 모든 데이터는 본질적으로 비경합적 내지 비배제적이라는 전제에 입각하여 데이터의 물권법에 의한 규율 가능성을 일괄적으로 부정해 온 통설은 더 이상 유효하지 않게 되었다. 이러한 문제의식 하에 이 글은 데이터, 특히 유체물-동등 데이터가 물권법에 의해 규율될 수 있는지 여부를 정면으로 다룬다. 데이터의 사법상 법률관계를 규명하기 위하여 국내외에서 물권법 외에도 다양한 접근법이 시도되어 온 것은 사실이나, 최소한 유체물-동등 데이터에 관하여는 경제법, 개인정보 보호법, 지적재산권법 등 민법 외에서의 접근이나 민법 내에서 통설이 취하고 있는 계약법 및 불법행위법에 기초한 접근 모두 부적합 내지 불충분한 것으로 보이기 때문이다. 미국&#8901;독일&#8901;일본 및 국내의 관련 논의를 비판적으로 검토함으로써, 이 글은 현 행법의 해석상으로도 물건, 점유, 소유권 및 담보물권 등 물권법 전반에 걸쳐 유체물-동등 데이터를 현재의 물권법 질서에 조화롭게 편입시키는 것이 가능함을 밝히는 한편, 그 법경제학적&#8901;법철학적 정당화를 제시한다.Although the age of the data economy has arrived, civil juristic relations regarding data are still opaque. Until now, the vast majority of Korean academia have concluded that data cannot be a “thing” under Korean Civil Code § 98 and hence the law of property cannot be applied. Instead, they have relied on either contract law or tort law to resolve the issue. Nevertheless, the majority opinion stated above has overlooked an obvious fact that one must consider the differences among various types of data when designing the relevant legal system. In particular, as the tangible-equivalent data &#8211; data satisfying rivalrousness, excludability and independent-existence conditions defined by this article &#8211; has recently emerged, the majority opinion based on the obsolete premise that all data are essentially non-rivalrous and non-excludable has become no longer valid. Based on this observation, this article addresses whether data, especially the tangible-equivalent data can be regulated by the law of property. Although domestic and foreign scholars have strived in various ways to determine civil juristic relations regarding data, it seems that neither non-civil law approaches based on laws such as antitrust law, privacy law, intellectual property law nor traditional civil law approaches based on contract law or tort law are suitable for the tangible-equivalent data. By examining existing researches in the United States, Germany, Japan and Korea, this article illustrates that by interpretation it is possible to incorporate the tangible-equivalent data into the law of property covering the legal issues of thing(res or Sache), possession, ownership and security interests, while presenting economic and philosophical justifications.

Marie Malaurie-Vignal

Definition: A blockchain is a distributed ledger that can record all sorts of transactions between users (Distributed Ledger Technology). This ledger is not centralized in one computer but distributed onto the computers of participants, also known as ‘nodes’. It is safe, transparent and operates outside any central control body. Different types of blockchain: the network is more or less open, depending on the type of blockchain. There are three types of blockchain: The choice of a blockchain does not only constitute a technical challenge but a governance issue: in the case of private blockchains, the protocol and conditions of use are defined by the network administrator. Disintermediation?: This technology is disruptive as it does not require a central authority. It does not require the involvement of a third party (eg banks, public registries, etc) to transfer value or secure the transaction. In traditional databases, a transaction needs...