Craig Wright, Self-Proclaimed Bitcoin Inventor, Loses Copyright Claim in U.K.
Bitcoin is synonymous with cryptocurrency. But a mystery has always surrounded Bitcoin: who is its founder?[1]. And if we know who it is—should they have the copyright to Bitcoin?
In 2008 a person under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto published the white paper, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,” which introduced the world to the theory and structure behind Bitcoin.[2]. Though the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto has been widely speculated since then, in 2016 an Australian computer scientist named Craig Wright has claimed that he is the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto.[3]
Wright has failed to establish his name as synonymous with Bitcoin, despite his numerous legal efforts. Wright has two copyright registrations for Bitcoin with the United States Copyright Office.[4] But despite the copyright application, Wright—still feeling insecure about his position—sued journalist Peter McCormack for libel after the McCormack named Wright “a liar” and “a fraud” on his podcast.[5] Because Wright put forth false evidence, he was awarded only one pound of damages.[6]
And past week, the High Court of England and Wales ruled against Wright’s U.K. claim to copyright over Bitcoin’s code.[7]
Why Did the U.K. Court Reject Wright’s Claim?
Although software and file formats can have copyright protection, the High Court ruled that the Bitcoin format did not have the “content” to support a copyright claim.[8] At issue at trial was only whether Wright had ownership of the file format, not the White Paper.[9] Like in the United States, the United Kingdom’s Copyright Designs and Patents Act protects literary works, which includes computer programs.[10] Therefore, computer software is copyrightable. However, as in the United States, a work must be fixed—for instance, the idea of a story must be fixed in a tangible medium, like a book.[11] However, the High Court found that Wright failed to prove fixation of the format because running a Bitcoin node to create a new block within the file format does not fix the work.[12] The judge held ultimately reasoned that “no relevant ‘work’ ha[d] been identified.”[13]
Wright Obtained U.S. Copyrights, Isn’t That Sufficient?
In 2019, Wright filed for, and was awarded, two copyrights with the United States Copyright Office—one on the Bitcoin white paper and one on its early code.[14] However, the registration is not sufficient in itself—copyright registration in the United States is not the Office’s determination of ownership by the claimant, but instead only “represents a claim to an interest in a work protected by copyright law.”[15] The Office is primarily looking to see only that the work submitted is eligible for copyright protection.[16] Accordingly, the Copyright Office does not use due diligence in verifying that the person registering the copyright is actually the author—it only asks that the claimant certifies that the statements in their application are true.[17] The Copyright Office states that when a person uses a pseudonym to register a work, the Office “does not investigate whether there is a provable connection between the claimant and the pseudonymous author.”[18].
Wright’s Next Steps
As of now, Wright has not appealed his decision. If he does, it will be interesting to see how the higher court rules, particularly because the High Court rested its decision on currently understood caselaw.[19] A higher court could make a decision in this case to change the nature of copyright in the U.K. For now, this is a win for those who want Bitcoin to remain open source.
Footnotes
