To some, the current developer issues in bitcoin are about overturning all the changes around Grokster and Limewire.
There is a concept in law called secondary liability. Another name is vicarious liability. I have covered this concept many times, and in fact, it is a part of my LLM thesis that was released before the launch of bitcoin. So you see, stating that you are peer-to-peer does not remove liability. I have mentioned that I used to work for groups associated with the software and media copyright industries. This includes RIAA and others. I also mentioned that I did work for MGM. I’m surprised that people haven’t put some of these things together properly, and if they did, they would come to understand what I see as the core of bitcoin in this.
In 2005, Grokster was sued by MGM, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court in the USA. MGM won, and Grokster lost with the developers being considered fiduciaries. The Supreme Court held that groups and offenders, which could be loosely defined as it is with bitcoin core who develop and actively promote technology, can be held liable for an infringement that the user commits.
In addition, I understand the competition law in the United Kingdom very well. This was incorporated into my studies.
In addition, I understand the competition law in the United Kingdom very well. This was incorporated into my studies.
The action in the Federal Court to shut down Limewire applies to other peer-to-peer networks and systems as well. So if people believe that BTC is outside the law, they should remember the entire Limewire system being closed. If you don’t believe that peer-to-peer networks are outside of the reach of courts, you should look at Grokster. From that case, it was noted that if you actively recruit people who seek to infringe and bypass the law, you don’t have clean hands, and your system can be shut down. At present, the promotion of my database without any rights and the incorporation of some of my intellectual property into that system is a breach that is being promoted.
If you investigate this, you will find that it is a case of where a copyright owner, myself and urge the court to find the technology vendor, BTC core, liable for distributing a multiuse technology capable and purposely activated to infringe the database rights which are based on copyright in the US and special rules in the UK.
Creating a completely new system is a valid response, but you start from scratch. I have no issue with someone doing this unless they integrate my technology, in which case, the same issues from above apply. You should have no problems if you have a completely new database and start with no existing holders and don’t pre-mine (this is a tax issue and something separate as a pre-mine is a taxable event) unless you use any of the intellectual property that I have developed. So when people say that they will copy BSV, they seem to forget that you can’t. When people set up new systems or integrate some of the existing patented material that I have, they seem to neglect this form of infringement.
CSW
Jan 5, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1641367479357000?thread_ts=1641367479.357000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3615
There is a concept in law called secondary liability. Another name is vicarious liability. I have covered this concept many times, and in fact, it is a part of my LLM thesis that was released before the launch of bitcoin. So you see, stating that you are peer-to-peer does not remove liability. I have mentioned that I used to work for groups associated with the software and media copyright industries. This includes RIAA and others. I also mentioned that I did work for MGM. I’m surprised that people haven’t put some of these things together properly, and if they did, they would come to understand what I see as the core of bitcoin in this.
In 2005, Grokster was sued by MGM, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court in the USA. MGM won, and Grokster lost with the developers being considered fiduciaries. The Supreme Court held that groups and offenders, which could be loosely defined as it is with bitcoin core who develop and actively promote technology, can be held liable for an infringement that the user commits.
In addition, I understand the competition law in the United Kingdom very well. This was incorporated into my studies.
In addition, I understand the competition law in the United Kingdom very well. This was incorporated into my studies.
The action in the Federal Court to shut down Limewire applies to other peer-to-peer networks and systems as well. So if people believe that BTC is outside the law, they should remember the entire Limewire system being closed. If you don’t believe that peer-to-peer networks are outside of the reach of courts, you should look at Grokster. From that case, it was noted that if you actively recruit people who seek to infringe and bypass the law, you don’t have clean hands, and your system can be shut down. At present, the promotion of my database without any rights and the incorporation of some of my intellectual property into that system is a breach that is being promoted.
If you investigate this, you will find that it is a case of where a copyright owner, myself and urge the court to find the technology vendor, BTC core, liable for distributing a multiuse technology capable and purposely activated to infringe the database rights which are based on copyright in the US and special rules in the UK.
Creating a completely new system is a valid response, but you start from scratch. I have no issue with someone doing this unless they integrate my technology, in which case, the same issues from above apply. You should have no problems if you have a completely new database and start with no existing holders and don’t pre-mine (this is a tax issue and something separate as a pre-mine is a taxable event) unless you use any of the intellectual property that I have developed. So when people say that they will copy BSV, they seem to forget that you can’t. When people set up new systems or integrate some of the existing patented material that I have, they seem to neglect this form of infringement.
CSW
Jan 5, 2022
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1641367479357000?thread_ts=1641367479.357000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3615
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment