Amin Hosseini is an IPilogue Writer and an LLM Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The Singapore High Court ruled on 21 October 2022 that non-fungible tokens (NFTs) can now be considered property, . are blockchain-based assets with a distinct identification number and metadata which can represent real-world objects and cannot be copied or replaced. They are minted using smart contracts. In , the NFT's owner applied for a loan on and provided the as collateral. Later, he failed to make loan payments and asked for an extension. The defendant initially consented to offer an extension of time to repay the loan. However, Ěýhe also declared that if the loan was not fully paid by the timeframe, he would use the "foreclose" option of the NFTfi's Smart Program. The defendant then used the "foreclose" feature to move the NFT from the escrow account into his cryptocurrency wallet. The claimant reminded the defendant of their agreement but the defendant declined to negotiate further and declared he would keep the Bored Ape NFT for himself. He then advertised sale of the Bored Ape NFT.

The claimant then sued the defendant for an “equitable proprietary claim” over the Bored Ape NFT, conversion, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The claimant also requested a proprietary injunction banning the defendant from dealing with the Bored Ape NFT in any form.

The court had to determine whether the Bored Ape NFT, and NFTs in general, are capable of giving rise to proprietary rights which could be protected by an injunction in making its decision. In deciding the case, the court applied Lord Wilberforce’s criteria for property in National Provincial Bank Ltd v. Ainsworth (the “Ainsworth test”), which was previously used to decide if crypto assets are property.

According to the , “before a right or an interest can be admitted into the category of property, or of a right affecting property, it must be (1) definable, (2) identifiable by third parties, (3) capable in its nature of assumption by third parties, and (4) have some degree of permanence or stability.”

The court maintained that the test’s first criterion means that the asset must be capable of being isolated from other assets, whether of the same type or of other types. Thus, NFTs fulfil the first requirement, since they can be distinguished using their metadata. Second, the asset must have an owner who can be recognized by third parties. For NFTs, the presumed owner would be whoever manages the wallet that is connected to the NFT. The third requirement comprises two aspects: “third parties must respect the owner's rights in that asset, and that the asset must be potentially desirable.” Here, the court believed that these prerequisites would be satisfied because Ěýthe owner has the exclusive authority to transfer the NFT to a third party using blockchain technology and such NFTs are the subject of market activity. Finally, to satisfy the fourth requirement, the aforementioned NFT is as permanent and stable as money in bank accounts.

The court that NFTs meet the Ainsworth criteria and therefore may be formed as property in a general sense, leaving open the question of what the specific nature of this property right is. For the reasons outlined, the court approved the claimant's request for a proprietary injunction.

This decision demonstrates that NFTs can be considered property Ěýseparate from the item they represent. The judge's ruling is a turning point for NFTs and the decision may have widely applicable effects and implications.

Further reading

Read more mere about .

To read more about the absence of proper Regulation of NFT Platforms and the associated outcomes, please see .

For in-depth knowledge about how smart contracts combine property and contract functions, please see .

The post Steps forward: Singapore Deems NFTs as Property appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Source: Screenshot of the Zoom Panel

Natalie Bravo is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Ěý

On November 24, 2021, the Osgoode Emerging Technology Association (OETA) hosted an interactive panel discussion with Professors and , led by OETA president and co-founder Murad Wancho.

from the Osgoode Fintech & Blockchain Association, OETA was founded in Spring 2020 and has quickly grown in popularity. As an OETA executive, I am honoured to share details of this informative event delivered by my dedicated colleagues.

Despite the fast-approaching exam season, the virtual event had an excellent turn-out of students and legal community members. The panel garnered traction preceding the event, with participants eagerly sending in questions on topics ranging from concerns to the future of (“NFTs”). Wancho began by thanking participants and snapping a lovely photo of everyone in the call (as seen above). Everyone rushed to turn on their cameras in time. I regrettably was too slow (or maybe Wancho was too fast!) This spontaneous moment of collaboration and engagement served as a fun icebreaker before introducing the esteemed guests.

Professor is an internationally renowned legal theorist and an Osgoode faculty member since 1982. His research interests include politics, constitutional law, and torts, and he teaches a wide range of courses. Hutchinson also authored an on the intersection between cryptocurrencies and the law, .

Professor has been at Osgoode since 2020. He is a research affiliate at for Internet and Society and a Research Fellow at the based at the University of Toronto. His research lies at the intersection of law, technology, and human rights. Penney recently designed and is currently instructing “” at Osgoode.

Cryptocurrency was the main topic of interest, along with the ever-prevailing questions surrounding its future. This form of decentralized digital currency has been around for but is growing in mainstream popularity. With a show of hands, over half of the participants expressed owning or wanting to own some cryptocurrency.

Hutchinson shared details on his upcoming book and his thoughts on regulation. While no one can accurately predict the future of cryptocurrency, Hutchinson discussed the merit in theorizing unique regulatory approaches to the decentralized system(s). and self-regulation were of notable interest. Many participants asked whether further external regulations would detrimentally affect the appeal and use of cryptocurrencies. The implications of overarching regulatory actions, such as securities or tax, are looming realities of NFTs and cryptocurrency, as we are now witnessing in multiple regions, Penney shared the sentiment of cryptocurrency as a speculative asset that likely cannot succeed without further mainstream support and usage. He also explored the environmental impacts of cryptocurrency , as crypto- utilizes large amounts of energy. Remarking on China’s recent , Penney expressed that some major cryptocurrency players have simply migrated their mining practices elsewhere.

The conversation shifted to career guidance within the legal technology field. This discussion was particularly interesting for 1L students developing their legal paths. Both professors offered pertinent advice on professional development, emphasizing networking. Penney highlighted the importance of reaching out to tech companies for any legal work available. Companies are increasingly incorporating emerging technologies within their operations, such as and algorithms, which may require legal expertise to ensure legal compliance. As innovative technologies emerge, so will the demand for technology lawyers.

Following the event, Professor Penney added, “In the coming years, emerging technologies like cryptocurrency and NFTs will pose a range of complex challenges for law, policy, and broader society. This was an excellent panel discussion, and OETA is showing great leadership in bringing students and faculty together to discuss and debate.”

While no one can ever fully predict the future of cryptocurrency and NFTs, both Penney and Hutchinson provided insightful perspectives. They both have extensive work related to technology that can help us theorize when looking forward. The panel elicited strong engagement and interactive feedback from participants. It was refreshing to learn more about technology law outside of the classroom setting and see different perspectives and interests within the field. I encourage everyone to explore the work of both professors and follow the OETA’s socials below for more information about our next event!

OETA Socials:

LinkedIn:

Twitter:
Facebook:
Instagram:

The post Osgoode Emerging Technology Association Panel with Professors Allan Hutchinson and Jon Penney appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by cdd20 ()

Emily Prieur is an IPilogue Writer and a 3L JD Candidate at Queen’s University Faculty of Law

In May 2021, a phenomenal by Keir Strickland-Murphy (Osgoode Law ‘22) touched on the recent boom of Non- fungible Tokens. In this piece, I will recapitulate Strickland- Murphy’s exploration of IP ownership of Non-fungible Tokens and expand on recent developments since May.

What are non-fungible tokens?

Non-Fungible tokens (“NFTs”) are unique digital assets that as a certificate of authenticity for an object, be it physical or virtual. Blockchain acts as a ledger to secure these assets. Blockchains are often relied upon for their security, so much so that certain universities have begun through them. As described in their name, NFTs have unique properties and are not interchangeable. As such, any digital asset can be tokenized through the “minting process”, much like a refrigerator, car, or computer is given a serial number. Unique identification is a valuable tool for the many and auction houses that have started using the blockchain to sell or . The sale of an NFT also includes a smart contract.

Strickland-Murphy noted that and were early adopters of the NFT craze. Since then, public fascination has only grown since then, with celebrities like Jimmy Fallon and Emily Ratajkowski jumping on board. In May 2021, Emily Ratajkowski sold an NFT called “. The NFT came in the form of a digital-only photograph featuring the model. Ratajkowski explained the impetus for its creation in her essay “Buying Myself Back”, where she shares that the photo she shared on Instagram had been hanging in the Gagosian as part of Richard Prince’s “New Portraits” art show. Prince had been putting other people’s photos from Instagram on canvas and re-selling them for $90,000. Given this situation, Ratajkowski’s NFT auction was, as Ratajkowski explains it, an opportunity to reclaim ownership over her photo.

Recent celebrity obsession with the Bored Ape NFTs has further fueled the NFT buzz. A bundle of 101 Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs recently . The funky cartoon images have caught the attention of . The interest in Bored Ape is almost palpable as the release of the Yacht Club NFTs can be connected to nearly a in the sale of the NFT Ethereum.

If an image is attached to an NFT, does that mean I own the copyright for that image?

Where an NFT buyer has purchased an image, they do not necessarily receive the copyright associated with that image. If we refer to the computer serial number example, just because you own one version of a computer does not mean you own the patent for the underlying software in the computer. In this case, the software would still belong to the software engineers that invented it. Similarly, if you purchase a painting, you do not assume the copyright over that painting once you have purchased it.

In Canada, an is necessary to transfer copyright from an artist to a purchaser. Therefore, the purchaser of an NFT will only receive the underlying copyright when the smart contract accompanying the NFT expresses this. Of course, unless waived by the artist, the moral rights associated with the artistic work remain with the artist. ensure the integrity of the work, and, when reasonable, the artist’s right to association with their work by name or pseudonym.

What about copyright infringement?

The images associated with NFTs have caused some confusion. An NFT seller must hold a copyright in the image associated with the NFT they are selling. To “mint” an image as an NFT, it is crucial that a seller holds the copyright or a license. However, as long as the seller is the copyright holder, several NFTs can be associated with the same image. In short, NFT sellers can sell as many NFT’s associated with a particular image as they wish, so long as they hold the copyright to that image. If they do not own the copyright to an image, they cannot tokenize it into an NFT and lawfully sell it.

Although NFT’s are a relatively recent addition to the investment scene, numerous lawsuits involving their associated copyrights have already emerged. Rapper Jay-Z Damon Dash, co-founder and shareholder of his record label RAF Inc., for attempting to mint one of his music albums, Reasonable Doubt, as an NFT. The court held that Dash does not own a copyright to the album simply by being a minority shareholder in the record label that owns it. As such, he cannot, in the court’s words,.

Quentin Tarantino is at an impasse with his efforts to profit off the booming NFT industry. Tarantino is embroiled in a legal dispute with the film production company Miramax after announcing that he would be auctioning off excerpts of his original Pulp Fiction screenplay, which he touts include “secrets” about his creative process. that Tarantino does not own the rights to the screenplay and, therefore, selling these secrets through an NFT would constitute copyright infringement.

Old Laws Protect New Trends

Despite the law’s reputation as conservative and , in the case of NFTs, old copyright laws have proven to be tremendously practical. Although the world of blockchain is exciting, it is at this junction that potential NFT sellers should take a moment of pause amongst the excitement to contemplate the legal implications of selling NFTs with legally protected works. When infringing a copyrightable work through the minting process, one must balance the cost of copyright infringement versus the value of the NFT itself.

The post Non-fungible Tokens: Commercializing Exclusive Digital Art- A Companion Piece appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Natalie Bravo is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Ěý

For years now, have identified potential benefits for implementing blockchain technology in the music industry. Blockchain could allow for more equitable pay for artists. Artists currently to achieve pay equity, especially in . in unallocated royalties end up redistributed when rights are unidentified. If implemented correctly, blockchain technology can serve as a database hub for copyright information and metadata.

Technological advancements and increased accessibility to musical tools allow anyone to become a published musician. Aspiring artists no longer need fancy studio gear or support from well-known names to create popular hits. More creatives in the scene drive competition. Thus, . For example, a single hit song, like , could have a dozen writers, each with their own stake in the final product. In the digital streaming era, when music is often written by multiple people, allocating royalties has become much more complicated. Paying artists what they are owed is difficult when ownership data may be complex and/or lacking.

In brief terms, blockchain technology is known as the foundation for cryptocurrency. The technology first appeared in the infamous 2008 Bitcoin authored by Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin works on peer-to-peer network “P2P” as an electronic cash system. It is publicly accessible and transparent through traceable transactions.

Today, blockchain technology’s utility has expanded to much more than just transferring digital currency. For years now, musicians have attempted to make use of the network. Notably, in 2015 . Heap has since been developing , a blockchain-based, music-sharing space. She recently released an in April 2021. Blockchain has established a following amongst listeners and musicians alike. It could drastically change the status quo, if done widely, correctly, and in .

As a trusted network system with no reliance on third parties, blockchain is a fairly transparent and secure platform. are key in dealing with music licensing in particular. To date, no database anywhere accurately demonstrates song and record ownership. Instead, various publishers own distinct datasets. These datasets are not always in agreement, and hence can result in conflicts. No uniform database on music copyright information exists. A notable failed attempt at a singular database is the . There are or , but none are used uniformly and across the board. For a longstanding industry such as music, this is a tremendous concern. Enthusiasts envision a music copyright database implementing blockchain technology that could remedy current industry complications. Ownership information could be accessible and easily verified by all. A network where everything is accounted for could potentially offer quick and seamless royalty payments.

Even if the industry doesn’t warm up to the idea of a centralized database utilizing blockchain technology, writers and musicians will likely keep exploring ways to get their fair share. With tech and music evolving at a rapid pace, it is anyone’s guess where the correct solutions lie.

Ěý

The post Blockchain to the Rescue? Missing Music Data & Royalties appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Claire Wortsman is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Ěý

Held on May 27, 2021 as part of Gowling WLG’s 2021 Blockchain Webinar Series, explored all things non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Speakers included well-known entertainment lawyer Susan Abramovitch, entrepreneurship and technology commercialization expert Thomas Hunter, leader of the Toronto Gowling WLG advertising and regulatory group Daniel Cole, and founder and CEO of Vinay Gupta. Gowling WLG partner Michael Garellek moderated the panel.Ěý ĚýĚý

Physical Assets as NFTs

Gupta gave participants a glimpse of , the world’s first and largest NFT marketplace. The front page was populated with ‘traditional’ NFTs: digital art objects, from paintings to sculptures to cartoons. But Mattereum specializes in another kind of NFT: physical assets. Gupta showed participants listings like a and a .

Listings of this nature are an exciting advancement in the NFT space, and not only for die-hard Star Trek fans and gold collectors. With companies like Mattereum using NFTs to eliminate risks associated with purchasing physical assets online, such as false condition reporting, the possibilities are endless. While NFTs were not designed for the sale of physical assets, vault reports, warranties, and the work of lawyers can build up additional layers of protection and open up the NFT market to a variety of assets by providing a guarantee that the information listed is accurate and building contracts that protect buyers’ and sellers’ rights. For example, since the buyer, seller, website host, and physical asset may be in different locations, an arbitration clause in the contract of sale prevents uncertainty about which laws apply to the sale/use of the NFT and in which venue any dispute would be resolved. In the future, NFTs may even be used to buy and sell real estate.

Digital Assets as NFTs

Abramovitch explained the importance for artists, and agents or marketplaces that sell work on artists’ behalf, to be aware of the IP rights involved in the sale of a digital asset. These rights vary more than those attached to the sale of physical assets. For example, musicians typically wish to retain copyright in their master recordings and musical compositions. But by entering into an agreement with an agency or marketplace to sell their music as an NFT, they grant the right to sell a copy of their master recording or musical composition minted (NFT lingo for created) as an NFT. While the agency or marketplace selling the NFT may allow an artist to retain their copyright, they will likely try to limit the rights an artist retains in order to guarantee the scarcity, and therefore the value, of the NFT.

NFTs and the Law

Hunter provided advice for individuals inspired to start an entrepreneurial venture using NFTs. First, it is essential from a legal and regulatory perspective to define the commercial purpose of the NFTs for sale. Second, individuals must determine who holds the rights over the product in order to mint and sell it as an NFT. Abramovitch touched on this as well, explaining the importance for artists, agents, and marketplaces to understand who is legally authorized to mint and sell something as an NFT, or to transfer this right.

Abramovitch went on to explain that although an artist may own the copyright in a work, they may have granted exclusive licenses. If a recording artist performs a cover song, they cannot give an agent or marketplace the right to mint and sell that recording without the consent of the musical composition’s owner. Similarly, a photographer may own the copyright in their work, but they may infringe the subject’s personality rights by selling the photograph as an NFT without the subject’s permission.

If an existing brand wants to use NFTs in contests or promotions, Cole explained that in addition to copyright, patent, and trademark laws, brands must be aware of advertising, marketing, and contest laws that still apply. He notes that this is an area where the law needs further development to keep pace with technology. For example, section 206(1)(f) of the prohibits contests with purchase requirements where the prize is any goods, wares, or merchandise. Is an NFT a good, ware, or merchandise? This is one of the many legal questions about NFTs that remain unresolved.ĚýĚý

For more information on any of the above topics, and many more ranging from the environmental footprint of NFTs/cryptocurrencies to whether an NFT could be used as collateral for a loan, I highly recommend checking out the .

Ěý

The post Where to Buy a Signed Captain Kirk Action Figure & Why You Should Care: Takeaways from Gowling WLG’s NFT Webinar appeared first on IPOsgoode.

What is NFT?

are non-fungible tokens based on Ethereum, powered by smart contracts. means it is unique and one of a kind. It can also be understood as a proof of ownership and authenticity. is an open source and decentralized software platform, and it is also the technology behind the cryptocurrency ether (ETH).

There are various platforms for NFT marketplace, such as , , and (for sports digital collectibles).

What does NFT mean for artist, collectors and the market?

Traditionally, artists would sell the physical copy of their painting, but this business model is not as suitable for digital artworks as physical artworks. Some artists were posting their artwork , or unable to sell their digital work, because there was significant difficulties in the digital work or authenticating the owner of the original copy when there is no physical copy. With NFTs and increasing amount of marketplaces for digital works, artists might be able to finally make money with their works.

This article written by Andrew R. Chow also mentioned that NFTs seemed to encourage and applaud more creative and innovative forms of artworks - “[m]any other artists working in groundbreaking and sometimes controversial styles are also receiving unprecedented interest from NFT collectors. Art with whirling 3-D renderings, street-style oversaturated color schemes, and hyper-referential (and often crass) cartoons are thriving.”

For collectors and the digital art market, NFT is a proof that the person is the owner of the original copy. Collectors might be paying more for “” or appreciation of digital arts than just for the money in this .

Concerns about NFTs?

Ioanna Lapatoura has discussed copyright ownership with respect to NFTs in her recent article on . NFT ownership is different from copyright ownership or a proprietary right over an actual asset. NFT is the “proof of owning an unique digital version of an asset, rather than the asset itself”. There is also new type of alleged infringement – copied artwork . Since NFTs are still new and developing, there is likely to be difficulties in enforcing intellectual property rights.

What’s in the Future of NFTs?

Some people view NFTs as cards and were bidding on the virtual future. Some people were skeptical and worrying that the NFT bubble might burst. Nonetheless, NFTs are providing creators of digital works a way to monetize their work product and receive real returns for their virtual work. Since NFTs are based on the Ethereum blockchain, maybe the other question that we ought to ask is – what is Ethereum and ETH’s long term growth potential?

Written by Ya-En Cheng, JD Candidate 2022, enrolled in Professor D'Agostino's Directed Reading: IP Innovation Clinic course at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.Ěý

The post NFT, A New Crypto Trend For Digital Arts appeared first on IPOsgoode.

, better known as NFTs, are unique digital assets whose veracity is secured through blockchain systems. What differentiates NFTs from contemporary assets such as Bitcoin is their lack of fungibility—unlike a currency where any single unit could be exchanged for any other unit and retain the same value, each NFT is verifiably unique and representative of some digital asset whose ownership is tracked through the blockchain.

But what does any of this have to do with intellectual property? Well, much of the recent NFT boom has surrounded digital art, with some NFTs representing various pieces of art selling for . While there is debate as to whether this demand for NFTs represents a bubble that will soon burst, for the purposes of this article we are more interested in what NFTs represent. Digital art, unlike its physical counterpart, has always suffered from the limits of its medium. While any number of reproductions of a physical painting could exist, there typically remains but a single original piece which can contain significant value. There is no digital equivalent to owning the “original” piece, as there has never been a way to “own” exclusively an original copy of a digital work. Of course, Copyright laws are designed to prevent the unauthorized copying of substantial parts of artistic works, but owning the right to prevent the creation of copies of the work is very different than owning the original work. NFTs, in a way, bridge this divide.

By creating and selling NFTs that are representative of their work, artists and creators now have an entirely new way to commercialize their intellectual property. Creators have already begun to test the waters by selling NFTs of , and this is certainly only the beginning of creative ways to profit from NFTs. Selling an NFT of a work does not prevent the owner of that work from licensing or otherwise exploiting the intellectual property inherent in that work, not unlike how a piece of art can exist in a gallery but its image can be used commercially. It is clear that the advent of NFTs represent a brand new way for creators to gain value from their intellectual property, and it will be interesting to see whether the demand for these NFTs continues to rise, or if they will go back to simply being a .

Written by Keir Strickland-Murphy, JD Candidate 2022, enrolled in Professor D'Agostino's Directed Reading: IP Innovation Clinic course at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.Ěý

The post Non-fungible Tokens: Commercializing Exclusive Digital Art appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Now let’s imagine a world without vending machines. I see your candy bar and I offer you one dollar in exchange for it. You accept my offer, then I hand over my dollar and you hand over your candy bar. Transaction complete: everybody is happy and maybe I made a new friend – why would we ever need smart contracts? Well, not everybody is so friendly, and misunderstandings happen all the time. That is where we need contract law and the courts. Or, in the words of philosopher , “Covenants, without the sword, are but words…” Luckily, the sword we all have is the legal system; unfortunately, there’s a very long line to use this sword and it is expensive to swing it.

This is where smart contracts might have an advantage. Let’s imagine that I hand over my dollar, but instead of handing over your candy bar, you run away with my money. Now I have to go to court and ask for because you breached our contract. At the end of the day, I still might not get the chocolate bar. I am better off dealing with the vending machine.

Contracts can be thought of as a , but smart contracts are different from the typical contract in law (see for an excellent analysis on this topic). One peculiar divergence with smart contracts is that a breach is, in principle, impossible. At this point, the vending machine example can be confusing – vending machines break and often fail to dispense the candy bar because of some mechanical issue. Let’s now think a bit more abstractly about computer programs and code. A basic conditional statement for my morning alarm might look like this: “IF the time is 7 AM, THEN play the alarm, ELSE do nothing.” Now imagine that I promise to give you $1 if you give me a wakeup call tomorrow at 7 AM, or else, if you fail, I keep my $1. I can make this into a smart contract by locking away $1 (perhaps using ) and programming something like this: “IF you call at 7 AM tomorrow, THEN transfer to you $1, ELSE transfer to me $1.” Notice how neither of us can go back on our deal; it’s out of our hands, it’s impossible to change (see for further discussions on the legality of smart contracts).

The interesting upshot is that by making breach impossible, it eliminates the possibility of breaking the promise. Legal scholars debate the relationship between contracts and promissory morality. that contract law should be understood in economic terms, while others argue that contract law should or consistent with a Ěý However, in making breach impossible, smart contracts seem to sterilize the relational aspects of trust and shared projects, which to the institution of contracts in general.

I remember reading in my 1L contracts class for mitigation. In short, it’s about an employee in a dispute with their employer over a layoff and – despite the bad blood between employee and employer – the court concluded that the employee should have taken the employer’s subsequent offer of re-employment to mitigate damages. The Court seems to expect us to put our emotions aside. But people are not rational maximizers or cold automatons. Smart contracts seem like a step in this direction. While smart contracts are certainly more efficient and perhaps more reliable, their inflexibility may limit litigants to restitutionary remedies and pose further doctrinal challenges for and fairness.

Written by Dan Choi, a second year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and an IPilogue Contributing Editor.

The post Smart Contracts: moral, immoral, or amoral? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The best way to start is by Bitcoin and explaining a few key definitions (underlined below).

Bitcoin is online money. But it’s special. Dollars are sometimes said to be backed up by gold, which means that we all agree that you can exchange the piece of paper for a certain amount of gold. (Note: this “gold standard” is a monetary system that was replaced by “fiat money” and only serves as a metaphor). Bitcoins are decentralized, which means it’s outside of the agreement that pieces of paper (or cheques or e-Transfers) have value and banks aren’t relied on to keep records of the balance in our checking accounts. This also means that there are no physical pieces of paper, rather, this system uses a blockchain. But how do I transfer currency to you without the pieces of paper?  One solution can be that we can all keep track of it. But if we all keep track of it, doesn’t that mean that anybody can change it? The honour system is good, but trust issues are greater. Blockchain solves this issue with a math problem (a ).

understands a blockchain as something “you can add data to and not change previous data within it” using a “mechanism for creating consensus between scattered parties.” They “do not need to trust each other but only trust the mechanism by which their consensus as arrived at.” The basic idea is that without the pieces of paper as money, there needs to be some other way of keeping track of how the money is moving. The solution is that you announce the transactions to everyone. All the transactions (me transferring to you, you transferring to a stranger, etc.) are clumped together in a “block” to add to the “chain” of other blocks. To add to the chain, “miners” have to solve the cryptographic puzzle, which takes a lot of computer power. If they arrive at the right solution, they can tell everyone that they have the right answer and everyone can verify it. Solving the problem is hard, but once a solution is announced, it can be easily verified. A new “block” is then added to the “chain” and everybody starts using the new blockchain. For their trouble, the solver gets some bitcoins.

As a form of currency, Bitcoin has to be limited in some way, or else it would be worthless. Thus, halving exists to limit the supply of Bitcoins entering circulation. Halving refers to the number of Bitcoins a miner receives being cut by half. This stops inflation from decreasing the purchasing power of Bitcoins. Prior to May 2020, miners received 12.5 Bitcoins, but after halving, they will only receive 6.25 Bitcoins. is programmed to occur every 210,000 blocks, and since a new block of transactions is completed roughly every 10 minutes, halving occurs roughly every four years. Fewer new Bitcoins means that the supply of Bitcoins will become even more scarce, which might have some interesting implications.

As I write this, two weeks after the 2020 halving, Bitcoin is down Historically, it often spikes in price for the next year or two, but it’s not clear if the halving is the cause. We should be careful of correlations and hasty speculations. Word already spread about the Bitcoin gold rush. Inexperienced investors have joined the party and changed the market. What are some things that might affect Bitcoin prices? A safe bet would be a new law affecting Bitcoins. Alternatively, a major economic event, like the current worldwide pandemic, also has the potential to impact Bitcoin prices.  

If you are thinking about investing Bitcoins, do your own research and understand the risks. Be cautious of predatory that take advantage of amateurs. For my fellow Canadians, take a look at the . Interestingly, Canadian banks aren’t so thrilled about cryptocurrency. For instance, does not allow the use of its credit card for the purchase of cryptocurrency  

What kind of world will we be in at the next halving? Like the price of Bitcoin, your guess is as good as mine. See you in four years.

Written by Dan Choi, a second year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and an IPilogue Contributing Editor.

The post The Bitcoin Party: The Morning After the Halving appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Blockchain, a ground-breaking technology synonymous with cryptocurrency platforms such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, is a decentralized network that supports peer-to-peer (P2P) transactions. By way of a public ledger, individuals can encode and send digital information to each other, protected by cryptography. Each transaction is verified by other network users using a consensus mechanism, which in turn creates a new digital block that is added to a pre-existing chain of blocks representing previous transactions. The result is a permanent, transparent record that can be accessed by users to verify transactions.

Roanie Levy, President and CEO of , , the record of ownership and exhibition history of a work. Through , Access Copyright’s innovation lab, artists will be able to that will track the work’s history as it changes hands. For artists, this means that any subsequent copies of their work can be traced back to its original source. Each artwork registered to the blockchain platform corresponds with a unique digital fingerprint, . Parties can consult Access Copyright’s to determine the rightsholder if copyright to a registered work is disputed.

An innovative feature of Prescient’s blockchain is its capacity to support , whereby visual artists receive payment when their work resells on the secondary market. Smart contracts (self-executing contracts supported by computer protocol) corresponding with artwork registered to the blockchain can automatically divert a percentage of the sale price to an artist each time their work transfers ownership.

Unfortunately, artist resale rights have yet to be legislated in Canada. Although musicians receive royalties each time one of their songs is played on the radio or streamed online, Canadian artists . The nature of the art market is such that works tend to appreciate over time. It is not uncommon for collectors to turn large profits when they resell work that they purchased for a fraction of the cost decades prior because the reputation of the work's producer has developed over time. With the establishment of a blockchain solution, Canadian artists may soon find themselves sharing in the proceeds of their labour.

Public consensus is a key requirement for a technology of this nature to gain traction, and there are still many questions that remain unanswered with regards to the sustainability of the proposed blockchain platform. Only time will tell what the future holds for Canadian artists, but with the CARFAC set to begin administering services for this new platform in 2020, the future appears to be bright for copyright protection for creators and artists in Canada.

Written by Lamont Abramczyk, a first-year student at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post Looking Ahead: Copyright Developments on the Horizon for Canadian Artists appeared first on IPOsgoode.