Licensing is one of the essential means of exploiting the monetary value of a musical work, and yet it is an area fraught with many issues and transactional costs which make it a difficult process for individuals and organizations. Many issues in music licensing arise from the legal complexity (e.g., national and international copyright law), business complexity (authentication, tracking, accounting, etc.), value web complexity (transparency of relationships among stakeholders), and technical complexity (e.g., establishing a global repertoire database for music, sufficient metadata standards) of working with music. Then, in addition to these issues, there are specific transactional costs (identification, negotiation, monitoring, and enforcement) associated with the licensing process. To mitigate the complexity and transactional costs associated with music and the licensing process, researchers and technologists have been investigating how new technologies and design models from the Web3 space, such as blockchain, linked data and Ricardian Contracts, can automate processes to reduce complexity, speed up payments, improve tracking, and provide other benefits in the music industry. In our report, we make our own attempt to reduce the complexity and transactional costs in the licensing process by developing an automated music license. In doing so, we first conducted a literature review scoping the intersection of music complexity and Web3 technologies to provide background and context to automating music licensing. Then we developed the Practical Tokenized Drafting (PTD) method, a set of core principles and practices for drafting Ricardian Contracts that interact with Web3 technologies (RC-Web3 Templates), and the Tokenized Music License (TML), an RC-Web3 Template standard form for music licensing on the OpenLaw platform. Both the PTD and TML can be adapted to meet the needs of music industry stakeholders and provide guidance to legal practitioners in drafting RC-Web3 Templates.
This article traces the debates occurring in the music industry where blockchain technology surged as an ideal solution for long-standing disagreements over distribution, publishing, licensing, sales, streaming, and listening. The projections (in conferences, media, opinion pieces, and academic reports) started as techno-utopian, but over time the discourse shifted from âradicalâ to âincorporativeâ goals. The technological dreams were scaled back as the scope of social challenges to technological solutions became clearer. Borrowing from Clive Barnettâs theory of convening publics, we argue that the role of the blockchain in this environment was not necessarily as a technological solution, but rather as a âconveningâ force that brought disparate actors together. Nonetheless, we still have to ask, who is invited to convene, and who is left out?
Web3, underpinned by blockchain technology, is an evolution of digital infrastructure, whereby protocol facilitates the direct exchange of value between users, removing the need for trusted intermediaries. Existing blockchain experiments seek to create artist-centric business models, dismantling agency-centred business models that brokered and organised connections between artists and their fans or buyers. By enabling the automation of the value components, including payments, licensing and intellectual property management, contracting and governance, digital content storage and access, blockchain technology also enables new âvalue-based economicsâ in which artists set the terms of their market participation. In this chapter, we outline emerging models and discuss some implications for creative industries research. Blockchain technology is currently being experimentally adopted into creative industries in order to improve transparency along supply chains, to lower costs of distribution by creating more direct platforms to connect artists and fans, and to improve handling of intellectual property and licensing arrangements, metadata, royalties and payments. We discuss case studies from music (Ujo Music and dotblockchain), visual arts (dada.nyc), and story-telling (Cellarius).
New currencies designed for user anonymity and privacy â widely referred to as âprivacy coinsâ â have forced governments to listen and legislate, but the political motivations of these currencies are not well understood. Following the growing interest of political brands in different contexts, we provide the first systematic review of political motivations expressed in cryptocurrency whitepapers whose explicit goal is âprivacy.â Many privacy coins deliberately position themselves as alternative political brands. Although cryptocurrencies are often closely associated with political philosophies that aim to diminish or subvert the power of governments and banks, advocates of privacy occupy much broader ideological ground. We present thematic trends within the privacy coin literature and identify epistemic and ethical tensions present within the communities of people calling for the adoption of entirely private currencies.
This Article outlines a blockchain based system to solve the orphan works problem. Orphan works are works still ostensibly protected by copyright for which an author cannot be found. Orphan works represent a significant problem for the efficient dissemination of knowledge, since users cannot license the works, and as a result may choose not to use them. Our proposal uses a blockchain to register attempts to find the authors of orphan works, and otherwise to facilitate use of those works. There are three elements to our proposal. First, we propose a number of mechanisms, included automated systems, to perform a diligent search for a rights holder. Second, we propose a blockchain register where every search for a workâs owner can be recorded. Third, we propose a legal mechanism that delivers works into orphanhood, and affords a right to use those works after a search for a rights holder is deemed diligent. These changes would provide any user of an orphan work with an assurance that they were acting legally as long as they had consulted the register and/or performed a diligent search for the workâs owner. The Article demonstrates a range of complementary legal and technological architectures that, in various formations, can be deployed to address the orphan works problem. We show that these technological systems are useful for enhancement of the public domain more generally, through the existence of a growing registry of gray status works and clarified conditions for their use. The selection and design of any particular implementation is a choice for policy makers and technologists. Rather than specify how that choice should look, the goal here is to demonstrate the utility of the technology and to clarify and promote its role in reforming this vexed area of law.
We have reviewed the potential impact of blockchain technology on the music industry by analyzing the views of academia and the industry experts. The music industry had rapid changes from the physical market to the digital market in the past decades. The consumers download and stream music online and mobile during the digital dominant market. While streaming music has been recently growing at a fast rate, fair distribution of revenue to the artists continues to be an issue. Some industry experts believe that the issue of fair distribution of revenue to the artist may be resolved using blockchain technology, while some are skeptical about the application or the duration of impact. The blockchain may enhance speedier payment using smart contracts, provide additional revenue and promote the music if excellent fan support is achieved. The positive impact on the music industry may only be possible if there are detailed consideration of the industry and careful understanding of the customers.
The current legal and economic infrastructure facilitating data collection practices and data analysis has led to extreme over-collection of data and the overall loss of personal privacy. Data over-collection has led to a secondary market for consumer data that is invisible to the consumer and results in a person's data being distributed far beyond their knowledge or control. In this paper, we propose a Data Market framework and design for personal data management and privacy protection in which the individual controls and profits from the dissemination of their data. Our proposed Data Market uses a market-based approach utilizing blockchain distributed ledgers for data distribution transparency and control and digital rights management technologies to provide for data confidentiality and secure distribution of the data. Our market framework and design provides an economic, legal, and advanced technology infrastructure that protects an individuals' right to privacy while nurturing a flourishing information economy.
This article examines the use of the blockchain to create limited editions of digital art with a particular focus on the business models of two companies: Monegraph and Ascribe. For some, the development of blockchain technologies and smart contracts suggests an opportunity for artists to protect their work from misuse and expropriation. For others, it suggests the possibility of stronger forms of digital rights management, going forward, that may negatively impact digital culture. However, this article argues that the aim of limited editions on the blockchain is not usually to institute stronger restrictions over use or a new form of digital rights management but rather to create new kinds of tradable digital assets. In turn, this trend implies a different operation of intellectual property rights with respect to digital culture, one where alienation rather than exclusion is significant, and a different operation of scarcity with respect to digital cultural goods, where their free circulation is not necessarily antithetical to profit.
4ě°¨ě°ě íëŞ ěëě ě´ě°ę˛° ěŹíěěë ě 3ěě ě¤ę°ëĽź ęą°ěšě§ ěęł ě°¸ěŹě ę° ë¤ěí íě ě´ ę°ëĽí ę˛ěźëĄ ěěëë¤. ě´ëĽź ěí´ íŹëŞ ěąęłź ě 뢰ěąě íëł´í ě ěë ěëĄě´ ííě íëŤíźě´ íěí늰, ë¤ěí ęą°ë뼟 ę˛ěŚ, 기ëĄ, ëł´ę´ í ě ěë ëśě°ěĽëśę¸°ě ě¸ ë¸ëĄě˛´ě¸ě´ ë°ëźě 죟몊 ë°ęł ěë¤. 미ě ěěĽěěë ë¸ëĄě˛´ě¸ 기ě ě ěĽě ě íěŠíěŹ ě ě ěŹę°í´ě§ë ě ěęś ë° ě§ě ěŹě°ęś, ěíě ěśě˛(provenance), ěě ëąě 돸ě í´ę˛°ě´ ěëëęł ěěźëŠ°, ëí ěę°ë¤ě ěí íë ě§ěě ěí íŹëźě°ë íëŠęłź íŹě, ěí¸ě˝ě¸ě íěŠí 미ě ěěĽě ëě¤í ë° íěąí ëąë ë모ëęł ěë¤. 본 ě°ęľŹěěë ꡸ëŹí ěëë¤ě ěŹëĄëĽź ě´í´ëł´ęł ę°ę°ě ě미ě íęłëĽź ëśěí´ ëł´ěë¤. ëśě 결곟, ë¸ëĄě˛´ě¸ 기ě ě 미ě ěěĽ ë°ě ě ěí´ ěśŠëśí ě ěŹë Ľě ě§ë ę˛ěźëĄ ëł´ě´ë, ęľë´ 미ě ěěĽě ě ěŠí기 ěí´ěë ë¸ëĄě˛´ě¸ 기ě ě 기ě ě , ëšę¸°ě ě íęłě ëí ꡚ볾 ë°Šě ë° ě ëě ęˇě ę°ě ë°Šě, ě 돸 ě¸ë Ľ ěěą ëą ęľę°ě ě§ěě ëí ę˛í ę° íěí ę˛ěźëĄ ëł´ě¸ë¤.The 4th industrial revolution will enable hyper-connected society which can facilitate various collaborations among network members without the intervention of a third party. To this end, a new type of platform that can secure transparency and reliability is required. In this context, the block chain is drawing attention as a distributed ledger technology capable of verifying, recording and storing various transactions. In the art market, various attempts are being made to address the issues such as copyright and intellectual property rights, provenance, and forgery, taking advantage of the strengths of the block chain technology. Also, there are cases of using the technology for crowdfunding, investment, and art coins with the goal of promoting the art market. In this study, we examine such attempts and cases, and analyze their implications and limitations. As the result of the analysis, it was found that the block chain technology has enough potential to advance the art market. However, in order to adopt it for the Korean art market, considerations are needed for overcoming the technical and non-technical limitations of the current block chain technology, regulatory reforms, and fostering relevant talents in the area.
This article examines the potential uses for Bitcoin and Blockchain technology in libraries. This article will also explore legal aspects of smart contracts as a means for paying for electronic resources.
This paper presents a method for a decentralised peer-to-peer software license validation system using cryptocurrency blockchain technology to ameliorate software piracy, and to provide a mechanism for software developers to protect copyrighted works. Protecting software copyright has been an issue since the late 1970's and software license validation has been a primary method employed in an attempt to minimise software piracy and protect software copyright. The method described creates an ecosystem in which the rights and privileges of participants are observed.
SELECTED ASPECTS OF BITCOIN AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE LAW AND ECONOMICS Abstract Bitcoin is one of the best-known examples of a decentralized convertible cryptocurrency based on blockchain technology. The diploma thesis deals with the main aspects of bitcoin and bitcoin payment networks in complex economic analysis based on the use of standard economic apparatus. The economic analysis is backed by a thorough and relevant legal research. The main goal of the diploma thesis is complex economic and legal analysis of bitcoin. In economic analysis, the emphasis is put on the use of supply-demand analysis, which outlines the basic factors affecting supply and demand for bitcoins. Based on a clear delineation of these factors, the thesis is able to analyse specific aspects of bitcoin. Diploma thesis analyzes the impacts of decentralized setting, as well as risks associated with anonymity of users, crime in connection with bitcoin, time delays in transaction verification, technical and energetic demands on mining, high transaction costs and internet connection needs. Each of these aspects is compared to existing payment institutions or systems. The thesis also examines the legal regulation of bitcoin. Due to the absence of a complex legal regulation, the diploma thesis tries to apply the...
This paper presents an introduction to the current state of art of the Blockchain and Smart Contract technologies. Blockchain is a fast-disruptive technology becoming a key instrument in share economy. The Blockchain-based Smart Contract aim to automatically and securely execute the needed responsibilities of a contract without the support of a centralized execution authority. The Smart Contract runs on top of the Blockchain to facilitate, execute and enforce an agreement between un-trusted parties without the interfere of third party to trust it as this Smart Contract is an executable code that runs with rules on the Blockchain. Smart Contracts have some features that serve the goals of social justice and fairness. The paper presents the basic important information about the structures of the Blockchain and Smart Contract technologies and conduct a comparison between the different methodologies used in the Smart Contracts. The issues faced within the Smart Contract technology are surveyed. The four key issues are identified as: codifying, security, privacy and performance issues. We survey case cases of usage of the Blockchain in various business sectors like real estate, voting system and supply chain. The paper aims to assist a developer to grasp the big picture of the Blockchain technology and to further assist in the decision process of suitability of the technology to a specific application area.
Analogous to the emergence of the internet, the introduction of blockchain technology augurs disruptive change to the music industry. Though in its infancy, the technology presents interesting policy issues related to registering and monetizing intellectual property, policing piracy, and creating and executing more flexible contracts between and among members in the music supply chain, among others. This paper assesses the ability of the distributed ledger technology to steer the industry toward a distributed model and its potential to drastically alter the entire music supply chain. It initiates a conversation about policy implications and how policymakers might address the issues related to adopting blockchain technology, including designing policies that support an environment that enables the well-deserved compensation of artists.
Abstract Visibility of digital art and its ownership can be achieved using blockchain technology as part of a broader solution for the identification, attribution, and payment for digital work. A case study is provided of a firm using the Bitcoin blockchain as part of an integrated solution to identify and authenticate ownership of digital property. An integrated ownership ledger allows for secure attribution, transfer, and provenance of digital property. Blockchain technology enables limitedâedition digital property, while Internetâscale web crawl and machine learning shows where and how works are being used on the Internet.
This post is an excerpt from my dissertation which can be found here via figshare. Note: The contained information pertains strictly to the US legal system, and is based on information I (Anthony Salvagno) alone researched. I am in no way a lawyer and offer no legal advice, but thought it would be foolish to not share basic copyright and patent law policy for scientific consideration. One of the biggest arguments I hear against open research is the fear about not being able to protect your intellectual property, also known as the fear of being scooped. The biggest oversight in that argument is that IP violations occur in traditional scientific culture both accidentally and maliciously. In an open environment, however, there is a greater risk of attracting this behavior if only because scientific research is made publicly available. With that said, there is nothing about being open that is any more inviting of harmful activity than in the traditional system. In fact, because of the current US legal system, being open may be more beneficial to protecting scientific information. With regards to the US legal system, there are two primary protections available to scientists: (1) copyright law would protect recorded scientific information, for example data and ideas, while (2) patent law would protect scientific processes, production, procedures, etc. Despite what is commonly believed, in no way does open notebook science prevent either protection from applying to scientific intellectual property. Open notebook science can actually stake your claim on IP and provide immediate protection. For patent law, patent protection is granted for one year once a work is publicly disclosed. If a patent is not filed, the IP becomes public domain and a patent can never be filed. In the case of copyright law, copyright applies from the moment of fixation (the moment scientific information is documented). In both cases, open notebook science can be used either as a defensive tactic to protect IP, or as an offensive tactic to prevent others from profiting from scientific IP. Copyright Law Copyright law is essentially very simple, and has been made increasingly simple since it was originally expanded upon in the US Constitution. The most recent addendum to this statute came about in the 1976 Copyright Act, which defined rights to copyright holders (exclusive rights), how copyright is achieved, and even what does/does not constitute infringement (fair use). While the law is simple in principle, copyright infringement is not necessarily black and white. In some instances it is questionable as to what is even copyrightable. In others, the matter of fair use is debatable. Even when there is infringement, it can be tough to prove because there are varying degrees of copying or âborrowing.â The bare-essential rules of copyright law can be seen in Table 1: Copyright is applied immediately from the moment any work is tangibly recorded, both publicly and privately. To be protected a work needs to be original (not novel) and there needs to be a minimum element of creativity (known as expression). The exclusive rights provided to copyright holders are reproduction, distribution, derivation, performance, and display. Copyright infringement is a federal offense! Even though copyright is applied immediately, in order to file suit for infringement a copyright needs to be registered with the US Copyright Office. A copyright is not violated if it has been determined that the infringer has a fair use of the material. Fair use is a broad definition and is only created as a defense in infringement suits. Table 1: Bare-essentials of copyright law. Rule 2 from Table 1 may reveal that copyright law doesnât apply to most of science intellectual property, because it is fact based and process driven. Patent law was developed for this very reason. While there are no statutes against having dual protection in the form of patents and copyrights, it is not likely to receive copyright protection if there is patent protection since the copyright lasts much longer than the patent. But thatâs not to say none of science is copyrightable. In fact, journal articles are in fact copyrighted. It can be interpreted that there is creative expression in organizing scientific discoveries (which are fact based) and that would make them copyrightable. Journals hold the copyrights for publications and have exclusive right to copy and distribute the articles any any material contained within. And there are cases where theyâve tried to enforce it. In that link, the author tries to distribute (via publishing in her blog) figures from a publication and receives a cease and desist letter. Unfortunately it will never be known if there was a violation because the infringement never went to trial. She made an argument for fair use, which probably has some grounds, but skirted around the issue by recreating the figures using the original data (which is NOT copyrightable), thus making her own original figures which are therefore copyrightable. There is a chance that she has no fair use argument since her reuse (even through attribution) is a clear violation of distribution rights and can be viewed as falling within the same scope of the original publication. In the case of publications, scientists waive their copyright upon submission and acceptance for publication and dissemination, and grant that copyright to the journal. Not all scientific output is formatted for publication, or released at all. In that case, it would greatly benefit scientists to publish their figures via an open notebook to provide copyright protection for their research (if that is in fact the goal). With regards to the traditional science system, scientists are offered protection from the moment they record their data and create figures based on that data. They are even protected at conferences where they present their research (either via an oral or poster format). This is specifically useful in the case of scientific scooping, which isnât as rampant as we make it out to be but is still a major fear in the community. If there is a case of potential copyright infringement, you have the right to file suit (once you apply for copyright). If you can prove there was access to your research findings and there is substantial copying you may even win your case. If you are an open scientist, in that you publish your research findings online before peer reviewed publication, you may be in an even better position. You are granted the same rights as a traditional scientist. In the open case, however, the proof of access is much easier to demonstrate since a simple Google search can turn up your findings. The burden is then that you prove there is evidence of copying, which is hard enough as it is. Because of all the possible interpretations of copyright application to science, I highly advocate the use of the Creative Commons licenses. The CC0 (public domain), CC-BY (use with attribution), and CC-BY-SA (use with attribution and share alike) afford the copyright owner the ability to share their research findings with the community and in turn allow the community to share, use, and reuse those findings without fear of retaliation. It is incredibly important to note that using the CC licenses (with the exception of the CC0) does NOT waive all exclusive rights as a copyright holder. They allow you to waive your rights as long as the reuser of the original work attributes, shares, etc (per terms of the license) in turn. If those stipulations are infringed, you are free to take action. In fact, there is legal precedence of such action. The licenses provide a means for others to use information and data without worrying about moral ambiguities, legal issues, and in turn promote a culture of sharing and attribution. With the CC licenses there will be more societal pressure to do the right thing. When credibility is involved social pressure can work wonders. For more information, please refer to the US Copyright Office website. Patent Law The America Invents Act was initiated in 2011 and institutes some new changes to patent law. The newest inclusion to the law is that now patents are given based on a first-to-file system, whereas previously they were given through a first-to-invent system. This change was implemented on March 16, 2013 as a way to conform to international policy, but also to decrease the burden of the US Patent Office in identifying first-inventor which can be extremely complicated and arduous. In a first-to-file system, a patent will be granted to the first person to file a patent for a given invention. While the system is as simple as it sounds, it tends to give advantages to larger entities with the resources and efficiency to file patents for every invention conceived. It is outside the scope of this writing to argue the merits of a first-to-file or first-to-invent system, but this is mentioned because there are a couple of workarounds to the first-to-file mandate. The first is through the filing of a provisional application, and the second is through public disclosure. In both cases, there is a one-year grace period under which a patent must be filed lest it become public domain. The provisional application is a low cost option that grants an inventor protection from competitive patent filings. The fee is $125 for small entity inventors, such as individuals, and $250 for large entities like corporations. The intellectual property remains a secret during the provisional period until patent. Public disclosure is a free alternative to the provisional patent, in the sense that there is nothing to file with the patent office. With this method, the details of an invention become public information, but no competitor may file a patent. Scientifically speaking, patentable items include processes, designs, and technology of all sort (although computer programs are hard to patent or copyright). It is usually advantageous to maintain secrecy when dealing with intellectual property, and this culture is especially prevalent in science. As such many universities and institutions have legal services that aid scientists in patent filings. In an effort to maintain confidentiality, it is highly suggested by these services to file provisional applications for all inventions. Much like copyright, the ultimate goal of a patent is to prevent competitors from stealing and reproducing a work without the inventor benefitting. It is little known fact that patents become public information after filing, generally 18 months after the earliest filing date. It is entirely possible for competitors to analyze a patent and create a ânon-obviousâderivation of the work that can then be patented. In this scenario the benefit of the patent application is essentially lost. Open notebook science can be a major benefit to the new patent process. Since it does cost money to file a provisional application, ONS (or other web disclosure) would provide a free alternative to the provisional application. The only difference between the two routes is that through ONS, the patent is immediately public information, while the provisional application maintains invention secrecy. Because the patent will eventually be public domain, the incentive to innovate is delayed a bit through the provisional process. While ONS publicly discloses a scientific creation and encourages potential modification, it does not promote/encourage stealing the idea. Scientists are still protected from patent infringement. Now, if a competitor sees the notebook entries and makes non-obvious changes to the idea, then they can be granted a new patent, if filed. That is no different from how the patent process currently operates, it simply speeds up the process. Filing a provision for every idea ever produced and paying $125 every time is a waste of money and resources. It is highly unlikely that every idea/invention will come to fruition. It also gives the US patent office a lot of unnecessary paperwork, and could actually stifle innovation and creativity. ONS would in turn allow a researcher to disseminate their ideas and protect the best ones for the original creator. Resources could be better used to fight for the best ideas and allow others to develop the ideas that wonât necessarily get the same level of attention or ever be produced. In this way ONS could be used as a defensive tactic to protect a scientist from losing his/her best ideas. It is also possible for open notebook science to be used as an offensive tactic. In this maneuver, the documentation of ideas born from discussions or other endeavors creates prior art (which is essentially the same as public disclosure). An invention disclosed in prior art is exempt from patent protection. So in the case of public disclosure via ONS inventions would be blocked from filing for patent. Hypothetically, a researcher could publish any and all ideas, techniques, or technologies and prevent all competitors (and peers) from filing for patent. In the interest of sharing research information, open notebook science may be the best protection against impediments in the scientific process.
Bitcoinâs popularity increased as its value increased and people became excited about the prospect of a trustless, decentralized currency that could be used on the Internet. Within the last two years, however, people and organizations began exploiting the potential of the block chain that powers the bitcoin network. These people realized that the block chainâa transparent public ledger that cannot be alteredâcan be used for more than digital currency. One such organization calls itself Ethereum and its developers plan to use block chains to allow decentralized autonomous applications to operate free of government censorship or corruption. While such a network would have a profound effect on societyâallowing trustless voting, uncensored social networking and the likeâits impact on copyrights could be devastating. This paper argues that the emerging, decentralized Internet (also known as Web 3.0) will be the straw that breaks the copyright ownerâs back. This paper argues that, with block chain technology and decentralized applications, those buying and selling unauthorized copies of copyrighted material cannot be subject to court injunctions; making enforcement of copyrights nearly impossible on a decentralized Internet. This paper then proposes that copyright holders get out in front of the problem by embracing a decentralized Internet. This can only be done by drastically reducing the price of copyright licenses. In other words, by offering cheap licenses at the dawn of Web 3.0, copyright holders can instill a sense that itâs better to be safe than sorry when it comes to the ongoing struggle between technology and copyrights.
In the digital world, so many copyrighted works are made in an illegal way because it is easy to keep and copy. Digital Rights Management has proposed to prevent this theft. Contents providers often bring in one server who has charge of managing the normal user, but there are some problems that it flocks to the server. Against this problem, P2P based DRM system has considered. All users can transfer the encrypted content to other users, so the content server does not have to load so much traffic from users. As a problem with this method, it is hard to figure out usage situation of contents because P2P based system is divided into many pieces of users. In this paper, we propose a new P2P based DRM system using Bitcoin protocol, which is one of the electric commerce. Bitcoin protocol, timestamp server saves all transactions to prevent double spending. We can bring out all usage situations to apply this system.
Open access
Digital Rights Management and Security
Advanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques