Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Bitcoin United Kingdom

Craig Wright Cannot Copyright Bitcoin File Format, Court Rules (decrypt.co) 57

Posted by BeauHD from the where's-the-proof dept.
UnknowingFool writes: UK Judge James Mellor has thrown out Craig Wright's cases against Bitcoin derivatives like Bitcoin Cash as Wright cannot claim copyright on the Bitcoin file format. Wright had sued forks of Bitcoin claiming they breached his copyrights to prevent them from operating. The judge disagreed noting that Wright had failed to meet a requirement of copyright called "fixation" detailing where/when/how the original expression was first recorded somewhere in any media.

"Whilst I accept that the law of copyright will continue to face challenges with new digital technologies, I do not see any prospect of the law as currently stated and understood in the caselaw allowing copyright protection of subject-matter which is not expressed or fixed anywhere," wrote Judge Mellor. In other words Wright has failed to show any evidence that he wrote down the file format somewhere to claim that he created the file format.

This is not the first time Wright has failed to produce credible evidence in a court case: in an Oslo, Norway case last year Wright claimed he destroyed a hard drive in 2016 containing the Nakomoto original keys despite telling a U.S. court in 2020 that he was waiting on the same keys to be delivered by a special courier. Those keys were later ruled to be fictitious. Decrypt notes that Wright is "currently in the process of suing 15 Bitcoin developers to retreive around 111,000 bitcoin after he lost the encrypted keys to access them when his home computer network was allegedly hacked."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Craig Wright Cannot Copyright Bitcoin File Format, Court Rules More

Craig Wright Cannot Copyright Bitcoin File Format, Court Rules

Comments Filter:

  • Something must be missing here (Score:3)

    by Shaitan ( 22585 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @07:07PM (#63276787)

    If you want to question Craig Wright's claim that HE did the expressing, that is one thing but this reads like the judge tossed out his claim because there is no evidence the bitcoin file format was expressed in some kind of physical media and entitled to copyright protection... that is an entirely different thing. If there was no expression then there would be nothing to have forked.

    • Re:Something must be missing here (Score:4, Informative)

      by presidenteloco ( 659168 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @07:10PM (#63276797)
      As I read it, the judge is just expressing that Wright did not produce any evidence directly linking himself with any provably earliest / original expression.

    • If there was no expression

      That's not the claim. The claim is there's no fixation. I.e. the expressed thing isn't fixed in any definable way to a time of creation by a person of creation. We all know bitcoin exists. That is provable. What was failed to be proven here is that Craig Wright has any claim to the copyright of it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shaitan ( 22585 )

        "the expressed thing isn't fixed in any definable way to a time of creation by a person of creation. We all know bitcoin exists."

        But it is fixed because it was released publicly and sans anyone producing any sort of prior art to that public release the preponderance of evidence (the usual burden of proof in a case like this) is on that expression and the public release was signed cryptographically by the creator. That is certainly more solid an identifier than any collected when filing for a copyright.

        As fo

        • OK, I'll claim I invented Bitcoin. You happy now?
          His claim does not tip any scales in the slightest: baseless claims are useless. He needs proof of SOME sort, and he has exactly none. Like literally NONE. No notes, physical or digital. No first drafts of bits of code. Nada.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shaitan ( 22585 )

            And did you state as much on the witness stand after being sworn in under penalty of perjury?

            Sworn testimony IS evidence in a court of law, the same as notes, drafts, etc. Yes, his credibility and personal stake in the matter impacts how much weight that evidence is given relative to evidence presented by the other side but if the other side is presenting ZERO evidence...

        • But it is fixed because it was released publicly

          No it doesn't. That just shows that a thing exists. In fact the claimant in this case is claiming that the creation of the thing in question occurred before public release, literally one of his arguements was that the design predates the genesis block (which objectively it had to, since programming isn't a public performance). And yet he can provide no evidence that he had any involvement, not at genesis, not prior.

          The claim is neither fixed to a person, nor a point in time. At this point I could claim just

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shaitan ( 22585 )

            "No it doesn't. That just shows that a thing exists. In fact the claimant in this case is claiming that the creation of the thing in question occurred before public release, literally one of his arguements was that the design predates the genesis block..."

            EVERY expression of a work is entitled to copyright, upon creation, not merely the first. Every time a band does a concert that performance is a shiny new copyright... is it a derivative? Yes. But that only matters if someone else is claiming copyright on

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shaitan ( 22585 )

            Well it wasn't about expressing it in physical vs digital media but it looks like this was not about his claim to be Satoshi but a technicality. The judge either wanted to see content within the format structure of the block or something which specified rather than exhibited the structure.

            You can read an excellent analysis here. https://www.barrysookman.com/2023/02/13/bitcoin-file-format-not-protected-by-copyright-wright-v-btc-core/ The file format was not the only matter at issue and the court found his fa

    • Re:Something must be missing here (Score:5, Informative)

      by nyet ( 19118 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @08:05PM (#63276939) Homepage

      "File format"?

      LOL. Ok.

    • In court, it's up to the parties to provide evidence. If Craig Wright doesn't produce the item that he claims was copyrighted, the judge isn't going to pull it from Github. That's not his job.

    • If you want to question Craig Wright's claim that HE did the expressing, that is one thing but this reads like the judge tossed out his claim because there is no evidence the bitcoin file format was expressed in some kind of physical media and entitled to copyright protection... that is an entirely different thing.

      No. Wright's claim was he was the original author of the file format to claim copyright to which the judge said he had to prove that somehow in any media.

      If there was no expression then there would be nothing to have forked.

      Except no one is claiming the Bitcoin file format never existed. Wright is claiming he invented it. The judge said: "Show me" which he never did.

    • The core of the claim is that Craig Wright insists that he is Satoshi, but cant prove it becacuse the evidence (including the keys to the giant pot of gold locked in the original bitcoin wallet) is lost. Most crypto ppl are pretty skeptical of the claim, personally I refuse to speculate, who knows, really.

      At stake though is an attempt at getting at that wallet, because its worth some 2.5 billion dollars. My guess here is that by claiming a copyright over the protocol, he figures it will give him the rights

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Let's look at the narrative from Wright's point of view.

        Wright claims he is Satoshi and has the private key to prove it, which he doesn't use to generate that proof.
        He claims at the same time as having the keys, those keys are lost, which means the bitcoins are permanently lost.

        Wright then uses the Satoshi private key to sign a post that says he (Wright) is not Satoshi, and makes that post public...

        That last part, from Wrights narrative, makes no sense. Why would Wright create and provide ironclad proof co

        • The copyright claims are an indirect way to bypass the skepticism that he is Satoshi. He does not have the keys but he has the copyrights. In this courts was not fooled either as then requirements of copyright are established.
      • Honestly, the lost keys are the proof that no one has a running many-bit quantum computer. Even if the bitcoin value crashes upon cashing in the contents of that wallet, until it's really crashed, many billions may have gotten extracted at that point...
    • I actually read it and the judge is saying that a use of a file format does not constitute a copyrightable description of it (even if some people are able to reverse engineer it), unless the use really does include a description. Inefficient formats like XML dialects effectively describe themselves with every use. Binary formats like how bitcoin block are stored do not. The software is hard coded to use these 80 bytes as the block header, etc. So if you wanted to claim copyright on a file format, you ha
      • The ruling is a practical one. Many here would argue that Bitcoin cannot be copyrighted as a matter of legal principle which I would agree; however, that type of ruling would be left to a higher court. The judge ruled that regardless if Bitcoin could be copyrighted, the requirement of fixation in claiming a copyright does not change. Wright cannot establish he has the copyright thus whether Bitcoin can be copyrighted is moot.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • i think the decision may have been wrongly decided. see my post https://www.barrysookman.com/2... [barrysookman.com]

  • Am I missing something? He gets hacked and claim he lost the keys but now is suing exchanges... did the thieves use his private keys to send the coins to another address or an exchange...? If not, I'd imagine those coins should be right where they have been and to get access to them is just with the private keys. Unless he just have the keys in the one location and no backups?

    • Re:missing something...? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by presidenteloco ( 659168 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @07:32PM (#63276849)
      Smart enough to invent Bitcoin but dumb enough not to have backups of keys. Things that make you go hmmm.

      • Especially since if you invented bitcoins you are presumably aware how important those keys are and you will back them up accordingly.

    • Re:missing something...? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @07:35PM (#63276855)

      He wants the Bitcoin devs to circumvent the blockchain and give him access to those coins directly, without the required keys.

      In other words, write a circumvention into the mining software, require everyone to use it, and give Craig Wright (who is a worthless piece of shit) access to 111,000 bitcoins that he has no evidence of owning.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by vivian ( 156520 )

        I hope it happens. Do you know what would happen to bitcoin value once everyone knew there were suddenly 111,000 of them potentially available to be sold?

    • My best guess: He never had those keys but he is claiming hackers "stole" his keys so he can sue the rightful owners to get them "back". Just like I am suing that scoundrel Gustave Eiffel who stole my tower and gifted it to France. Over a hundred years ago. Before I was born.

  • Name (Score:5, Funny)

    by raftpeople ( 844215 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @07:13PM (#63276815)
    At what point do we get to refer to him as Craig Wrong?

  • "file format" (Score:5, Informative)

    by nyet ( 19118 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @07:13PM (#63276817) Homepage

    What the fuck is the bitcoin "file format"?

    Idiots.

    • Berkeley DB? Yeah, it's not clear what they mean by "file format". But then Craig Wright only needs to scam one judge into believing something they can't hope to understand to get a huge payday.

      • Craig Wright only needs to scam one judge into believing something they can't hope to understand to get a huge payday.

        Beats getting a real job, I suppose.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nyet ( 19118 )

        > Berkeley DB

        Which, if you wanted to, you could switch out to any other random DB, especially since bitcoin is quite literally one of the least dense, least demanding chains when it comes to db footprint.

        Or does they mean the *on wire* transaction serialization protocol format (which isn't a file).

        Anyway, the only thing dumber than Wright and the courts are the idiots reporting on this story.

      • Based on the court ruling they are referring to the format in which blocks are stored on the blockchain. You know, block ID, hash, timestamp, tx_root, nonce etc. All the stuff that accompanies the math that is saved in the blockchain.

        The idea of calling it a "file format" allegedly came from this scam artist pretending that when he totally did develop bitcoin, before going public they would store these blocks as a file on his disk.

  • Craig Wright has been claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto so he can use the legal system to extort money out of developers in the cryptocurrency ecosystem. He's like a patent troll but without the patents to back up his claims.

    If I had to venture a guess, the real Satoshi Nakamoto probably died unexpectedly and didn't mention anything about Bitcoin in their will.

    • If I had to venture a guess, the real Satoshi Nakamoto probably died unexpectedly and didn't mention anything about Bitcoin in their will.

      No, he's still alive.

    • I would guess it's NSA. Consider how Bitcoin works. It's all a giant honeypot. All accounts are "anonymous" but all transactions are public. This gives a false sense of security. If one can intercept internet traffic, one can identify the entry point of any transaction and thus tie accounts to IP addresses. NSA has such wiretaps all over the internet. NSA is very good at graph analysis. Also, who else would know enough about cryptography, and who else wouldn't care about the 10s of billions of dollars tha

    • Everyone no matter how ludicrous or deluded deserves attention from the court. Preferably in the form of finding evidence for fraud and perjury so we can lock this nutter away.

    • Some gullible/uninformed people believe his claim that he is Satoshi. In this case, he was trying to prevent Bitcoin derivatives from operating. While I have no vested interest in any cryptocurrency, they should be allowed to operate whatever way they want.

  • Once upon a time, SCO grotesquely and intentionally misinterpreted some contracts to claim ownership of LINUX. Does this guy even have anything _to_ misinterpert?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nyet ( 19118 )

      Maybe if SCO claimed they owned the "copyright" to the Linux "file format" they would have won.

    • Once upon a time, SCO grotesquely and intentionally misinterpreted some contracts to claim ownership of LINUX.

      Those who can, do.
      Those who can't, sue.

    • It would appear the judge has ruled that no, he has nothing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sconeu ( 64226 )

        This didn't stop the SCOundrels... I mean, the court ruled that Novell owned the copyrights not SCO, but that didn't stop them.

  • When Craig Wright claimed he lost a drive with keys and had no backup it was believable. At that point the benefit of the doubt was with him. Things like that do happen. It's pretty stupid to have no backup to keys allowing you to transfer over a billion USD worth of BTC but hey, who am I to judge.

    DRP Rule #1 - Have a DRP. Craig Wright did not.
    DRP Rule #2 - Have backups. Craig Wright did not.
    DRP Rule #3 - Test those backups. Craig Wright did not.

    Is he a savant who built blockchain concepts and (sigh)

    • When Craig Wright claimed he lost a drive with keys and had no backup it was believable.

      Were these the same keys that he claimed in another court case years earlier that he had to wait a year for a "bonded courier" to present to the court? When the opposing party examined the keys, they determined them to be fictitious. I am pretty sure there were same keys he somehow "lost" years later.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by gavron ( 1300111 )

        When Craig Wright claimed he lost a drive with keys and had no backup it was believable.

        Were these the same keys that he claimed in another court case years earlier that he had to wait a year for a "bonded courier" to present to the court? When the opposing party examined the keys, they determined them to be fictitious. I am pretty sure there were same keys he somehow "lost" years later.

        I'm pretty sure you're 100% right!

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by DVK9 ( 9481479 )
          He wants the "return" of 111,000 bitcoins. At todays prices this is about 2.5 BILLION usd. He is just trying to find a court that will "overlook" evidence and let him do as he pleases.
          • No those 110,000 are different coins. Those coins were "stolen" from him by "hackers". The ones he claimed that were lost in a disk were the millions that many believe were created by Satoshi.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close