because an unused sample white paper appeared in macOS? FFS Attention seeking, fame fucker. Even if he had proof he was the author it would still be a very dubious case. Without proof it sounds like a grift from a former president who's about to be a convicted felon. Humanity really needs a reboot.
"Without the registered mark, the owner of the copyright can not sue for infringement.”
Applicable to a US author, writing in the US & raising the suit in the US. Other rules apply in other countries. As always, nothing is straightforward in law.
There are a whole lot of words being spun up around something that someone is “thinking about doing.” There are zero cards on the table, just a little baseless bluffing going on. Until he plays his first card this is just another big ol’ nothingburger.
If it becomes a problem for Apple, it could just be removed. There is nothing essential in Bitcoin to the operation of the MacOS, is there? Is it even in use, or just taking up disk space?
I'm guessing every copy of macOS running on an M-series chip has a little routine that runs in the background and generates Bitcoin for Apple. I'm guessing it's that process for Photos that is always consuming my CPU.
If he really invented the greatest Ponzi scheme every conceived, shouldn’t he already be wealthy beyond measure? Why sue for such a frivolous reason?
I'm not sure bitcoin beats social security for the "greatest Ponzi scheme every(sic) conceived," but I'm pretty sure you have to register your copyright before the infringement occurs anyway, or you have to prove actual damages. From USPTO:
Although registration with the Copyright Office is not required to secure protection, it does provide a number of benefits:
Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
Registration is necessary before an infringement suit may be filed in court (for works of U.S. origin).
If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration establishes prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the registration certificate.
If registration is made within 3 months after first publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney’s fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U.S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies.
Wrong. It is not necessary to include the (c) symbol to sue someone for infringement. Including the symbol is beneficial to the copyright holder because, among other things, it precludes certain defenses.
because an unused sample white paper appeared in macOS? FFS Attention seeking, fame fucker. Even if he had proof he was the author it would still be a very dubious case. Without proof it sounds like a grift from a former president who's about to be a convicted felon. Humanity really needs a reboot.
What makes it "dubious" if he can prove he is the author? What element of a copyright infringement claim is missing here?
Although Wright has yet to file a formal lawsuit against Apple, it's unlikely he will succeed since he still has to provide irrefutable evidence that he is indeed the creator of Bitcoin. Given the nature of the document, it's also unclear if any copyright law applies.
No, he only needs to prove he is the author. Fictious names and pseudonyms may be used, and the author is still entitled to copyright protection.
He also doesn't need to prove that he invented Bitcoin. All he needs to prove is that he wrote the article.
Copyright law applies here. Clearly, the article is copyrighted by default. It needs to be registered to bring a suite. But this article has been out in the wild for 15 years. We’ve all copied it by now. A successful suite must be brought within 3 years of infringement. It think that has passed?
Clearly only the author can register for copyright protection, so Wright needs to prove he is the author. Not likely.
Finally, the way it was published makes it arguable that it was meant to be in the public domain. Fair use at least. One key element is if way back 15 years ago, if someone want to get permission to copy this work, there must have been a way to ask for permission. That has proven impossible.
Wrong. It is not necessary to include the (c) symbol to sue someone for infringement. Including the symbol is beneficial to the copyright holder because, among other things, it precludes certain defenses.
because an unused sample white paper appeared in macOS? FFS Attention seeking, fame fucker. Even if he had proof he was the author it would still be a very dubious case. Without proof it sounds like a grift from a former president who's about to be a convicted felon. Humanity really needs a reboot.
What makes it "dubious" if he can prove he is the author? What element of a copyright infringement claim is missing here?
Although Wright has yet to file a formal lawsuit against Apple, it's unlikely he will succeed since he still has to provide irrefutable evidence that he is indeed the creator of Bitcoin. Given the nature of the document, it's also unclear if any copyright law applies.
No, he only needs to prove he is the author. Fictious names and pseudonyms may be used, and the author is still entitled to copyright protection.
He also doesn't need to prove that he invented Bitcoin. All he needs to prove is that he wrote the article.
I'm glad you aren't one of those clowns that claim to know everything about copyright laws. But you seem to have forgotten a very important fact about registering a copyright. Without the registered mark, the owner of the copyright can not sue for infringement. They can however still prevent someone from using their work, after proving ownership of the work and notifying the alleged infringer.
Unless this guy register his work, he's not entitle to sue for copyright infringement. And in order to register this paper, he must prove he's the author. Just claiming to be the author is not enough to sue Apple for copyright infringement.
And even if he proves himself to be the document creator and proves copyright infringement, then comes the matter of damages. Without harm there can be no damage award. What harm has come from a copy of the white paper embedded in the OS where nobody until very recently even knew it was there? And what harm comes from its discovery. Anyone can obtain a copy of this document from other sources. Most prominently, straight from Bitcoin.org. No charge. I’m scrolling through it on my ipad as I write this comment on my iPhone.
"Without the registered mark, the owner of the copyright can not sue for infringement.”
Applicable to a US author, writing in the US & raising the suit in the US. Other rules apply in other countries. As always, nothing is straightforward in law.
So copyright in the US is pretty hilariously broken. No, he doesn't need to prove he's the author of the paper, he only needs to tell the Copyright Office that he is, and they believe him. He already did this back in 2019. The Copyright Office issued some press releases shortly thereafter to clarify that while he has the copyright, they explicitly did not evaluate the truth of any statements he made when applying for the copyright:
As a general rule, when the Copyright Office receives an application for registration, the claimant certifies as to the truth of the statements made in the submitted materials. The Copyright Office does not investigate the truth of any statement made. ... In a case in which a work is registered under a pseudonym, the Copyright Office does not investigate whether there is a provable connection between the claimant and the pseudonymous author.
In the case of the two registrations issued to Mr. Wright, during the examination process, the Office took note of the well-known pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto,” and asked the applicant to confirm that Craig Steven Wright was the author and claimant of the works being registered. Mr. Wright made that confirmation. This correspondence is part of the public registration record.
Think of it like notarization in the US. A notary isn't attesting to the truth or validity of what they stamp. They're attesting that the thing they stamped was signed in their presence by someone whose identity they confirmed. I can write up a contract saying I own Apple and get it notarized. Sovcits pull this kind of nonsense occasionally.
Craig Wright is a fraud who clearly did not have anything to do with the creation of Bitcoin. Even so, he holds a registered copyright interest in the Bitcoin paper in the US. He is not known to have similar copyright interest anywhere else.
Craig Wright is a fraud who clearly did not have anything to do with the creation of Bitcoin. Even so, he holds a registered copyright interest in the Bitcoin paper in the US. He is not known to have similar copyright interest anywhere else.
And the registration still means nothing until it's tested in court.
Which I would love to see him engage - of all companies - with Apple's lawyers on. About the only worse decision he could make is to try to take on Disney's lawyers over copyright.
It looks like the Bitcoin debate is taking an exciting turn. The world of cryptocurrency never ceases to amaze me. I'm curious to see how this lawsuit will develop and its impact on cryptocurrency. BTW, I started using MetaTrader 4 a couple of months ago, as it provides a wide range of options for different asset trading styles, and I follow it every day. You may be interested in mt4 free download to keep a closer eye on all the developments. It's always interesting when there are unexpected twists and turns in technology.
Comments
Applicable to a US author, writing in the US & raising the suit in the US. Other rules apply in other countries. As always, nothing is straightforward in law.
So copyright in the US is pretty hilariously broken. No, he doesn't need to prove he's the author of the paper, he only needs to tell the Copyright Office that he is, and they believe him. He already did this back in 2019. The Copyright Office issued some press releases shortly thereafter to clarify that while he has the copyright, they explicitly did not evaluate the truth of any statements he made when applying for the copyright:
Think of it like notarization in the US. A notary isn't attesting to the truth or validity of what they stamp. They're attesting that the thing they stamped was signed in their presence by someone whose identity they confirmed. I can write up a contract saying I own Apple and get it notarized. Sovcits pull this kind of nonsense occasionally.
Craig Wright is a fraud who clearly did not have anything to do with the creation of Bitcoin. Even so, he holds a registered copyright interest in the Bitcoin paper in the US. He is not known to have similar copyright interest anywhere else.
Which I would love to see him engage - of all companies - with Apple's lawyers on. About the only worse decision he could make is to try to take on Disney's lawyers over copyright.