Blockchain technology has emerged as a promising tool with potential applications in various domains, including copyright law. This dated bibliography aims to synthesize the essential findings and insights from four articles that explore the implications of blockchain technology for copyright management and enforcement. The articles discuss the characteristics of smart contracts and blockchains, their potential benefits, and the challenges in balancing private ordering and public policy objectives. Finally, the analysis sheds light on the opportunities and limitations blockchain technology presents in the copyright domain.
The articles highlight several opportunities that blockchain technology offers in copyright management. Firstly, blockchain-based systems can create artificial scarcity, allowing for the commodification of digital works and the establishment of new markets. Tokenization and smart contracts enable precise tracking of digital assets, providing evidence of authorship, provenance, and qualification requirements. Additionally, Blockchain has the potential to facilitate transparent and disintermediated transactions, enabling micropayments, fairer remuneration models, and standardized licensing terms. Finally, a public copyright blockchain registry could enhance transparency, rights management, and accessibility of works (Finck & Moscon, 2019).
Chen et al. (2021) examine the decentralized governance of digital platforms and the impact on performance. They find an inverted U-shaped relationship, suggesting that platforms with moderate decentralization levels exhibit better marketplace performance. The study emphasizes the importance of shared governance through semi-decentralization in attracting users, developers, and stakeholders, enhancing network effects, and creating long-term value. Effective governance requires a balance between centralization and decentralization, guided by experienced leaders (Chen et al., 2021).
Despite the opportunities blockchain technology exhibits, some significant challenges and limitations must be addressed. One key challenge is the volatility of cryptocurrencies, which currently hinder their use in royalty payments. Network effects pose another challenge, as widespread adoption is required to unlock the full potential of blockchain-based copyright management systems. In addition, the double-spending problem remains unresolved, limiting the reliability of blockchain records for off-chain transfers. The “garbage-in garbage-out” problem also raises concerns about the accuracy and authenticity of information entered into the Blockchain. Moreover, the regulatory force of computer code and algorithmic enforcement may raise issues of control and access to digital assets.
The articles emphasize the importance of balancing private ordering and public policy objectives using blockchain technology for copyright management. While Blockchain can offer decentralized and fairer means of administering rights and sharing digital content, there is a risk that it may strengthen existing power structures and disregard public interests. Statutory safeguards, mandatory permitted uses, and “fair use by design” approaches are proposed to protect users’ rights and promote copyright balance. Interdisciplinary research and multi-stakeholder conversations are crucial in ensuring responsible innovation and incorporating public policy objectives into blockchain-based copyright management systems.
Zachariadis et al. (2019) focus on the governance challenges blockchain technology developers and companies face concerning financial services. They discuss scalability, openness, interoperability, liability, transparency, security, and trust. The study emphasizes the importance of robust governance mechanisms and interdisciplinary research to address these challenges and maximize the potential of Blockchain in finance. The authors also highlight the geopolitical risks and implications of Blockchain technology (Zachariadis et al., 2019).
In conclusion, blockchain technology presents both opportunities and challenges for copyright law. It can revolutionize copyright management by enabling transparent transactions, facilitating rights administration, and automating contractual obligations. However, careful consideration is needed to address the limitations and ensure blockchain-based systems promote public policy objectives, user rights, and copyright balance. Blockchain technology has the potential to revolutionize copyright management but also poses challenges, such as value fluctuations and network effects. Furthermore, governance issues related to scalability, interoperability, and trust in financial services need to be addressed. Overall, robust governance mechanisms, interdisciplinary research, and nuanced approaches are necessary to harness the potential of blockchain technology while ensuring fairness, security, and optimal outcomes across different contexts.
Annotated Bibliography
Chen, Y., Richter, J. I., & Patel, P. C. (2021). Decentralized Governance of Digital Platforms. Journal of Management, 47(5), 1305–1337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320916755
Chen et al.(2021) conducted a comprehensive study on the decentralized governance of digital platforms, focusing on the implications for platform performance. Utilizing mechanism design theory and data from the blockchain industry, the researchers examined the relationship between decentralization and various performance indicators, including market capitalization, developer attention, development activity, and social media followers. The findings revealed an inverted U-shaped relationship, indicating that platforms with moderate levels of decentralization tend to exhibit better marketplace performance. The study also explored the influence of infrastructure-layer platforms and experienced leaders on platform governance. It demonstrated that infrastructure-layer platforms are less inclined to adopt semi-decentralized governance structures, while experienced leaders can effectively counterbalance excessive decentralization and guide platforms toward more optimal levels.
It is argued that “by promoting shared governance through semi-decentralization, centralized platforms may be better able to attract users, developers, and other stakeholders, potentially allowing them to enhance their network effects and create more value over the long run” (Chen et al., 2021, p. 1313). However, the article does not use value outside the exchange price and confounds short-term speculation with valid use cases. This leads to a misrepresentation of how the asset is perceived.
Moreover, the research emphasized the significance of shared governance and strategic leadership in the context of digital platforms. It highlighted the importance of balancing centralization and decentralization, as pure decentralization may hinder effective decision-making and impede platform development. The study shed light on the experiences of notable platforms such as Google’s Android and Facebook’s Libra, which have embraced semi-decentralized governance structures to combine the benefits of open participation and controlled governance. The authors argued that shared governance through semi-decentralization enables platforms to attract users, developers, and other stakeholders, fostering network effects and long-term value creation. Furthermore, adopting semi-decentralization may help dominant platforms address trust and antitrust concerns associated with platform monopolies.
Overall, this research contributes to understanding effective platform governance and provides valuable insights into the design and performance of digital platforms. By examining the interplay between centralization, decentralization, and platform outcomes, the study offers guidance for platform owners, entrepreneurs, and investors. It underscores the need for considering the perspectives of various stakeholders in platform governance beyond solely focusing on the objectives of platform owners. The findings highlight the potential benefits of semi-decentralized governance structures and experienced leadership in achieving better platform performance, ensuring fair value distribution, and navigating the challenges of the evolving platform economy.
Couture, S., & Toupin, S. (2019). What does the notion of “sovereignty” mean when referring to the digital? New Media & Society, 21(10), 2305–2322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819865984
Couture and Toupin (2019) explore the concept of “sovereignty” concerning the digital realm. They examine the various interpretations and uses of digital sovereignty by different actors, including states, social movements, indigenous communities, and individuals. The authors identify four categories of discourse: state sovereignty, cyberspace sovereignty, digital sovereignty with governments and states, and indigenous digital sovereignty. They analyze the commonalities and differences within these categories and discuss the shifts from collective to individual understandings of sovereignty.
Couture and Toupin (2019, p. 2317) contend that digital sovereignty, while “the notion was and is still mainly used to address state control over technology, it is now being appropriated by civil society organizations, indigenous peoples, and even individuals. In a sense, we see a shift from the collective—the state as its typical expression—to the individual” (Couture & Toupin, 2019, p. 2317). The authors argue that this highlights the shift in the understanding of sovereignty from a collective perspective to an individual one. While state sovereignty traditionally focused on collective structures, sovereignty is now applied to abstract notions of civil society and individual agency concerning technology. The authors emphasize that this shift is significant, reflecting a broader trend in which sovereignty is being reimagined and redefined in the digital realm.
Couture and Toupin (2019) highlight what they reference as the growing interest in digital sovereignty in response to factors such as cloud computing and revelations of mass surveillance. They also caution against overlooking the historical and power dynamics embedded in sovereignty, mainly its association with colonialism and imperialism. Couture and Toupin stress the importance of critically examining the use of sovereignty, particularly in social movements and indigenous struggles. Couture and Toupin (2019) argue for a nuanced and contextualized approach that addresses the complexities and potential inequalities inherent in the concept.
This article provides a biased and one-sided analysis of the notion of sovereignty in the digital context. It offers the authors’ vision of the diverse perspectives and uses of digital sovereignty while raising questions Couture and Toupin (2019) see as necessary concerning the limitations and potential implications of digital sovereignty. The authors emphasize the need to question and critique the concept of sovereignty, considering historical legacies and power dynamics. This work forms part of the broader interpretation of digital governance and emphasizes the complexities of asserting control and autonomy in the digital realm.
Finck, M., & Moscon, V. (2019). Copyright Law on Blockchains: Between New Forms of Rights Administration and Digital Rights Management 2.0. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 50(1), 77–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-00776-8
Finck and Moscon (2019) explore the implications of blockchain technology for copyright law, focusing on the tension between new forms of rights administration and the potential for digital rights management (DRM) 2.0. The authors analyze the characteristics of smart contracts and blockchains and their applications in the copyright domain. They discuss the potential benefits of blockchain technology, such as creating artificial scarcity, tracking digital assets, and enabling transparent and disintermediated transactions. The authors also highlight the structural challenges and limitations of blockchain technology, including value fluctuations of cryptocurrencies, network effects, the double-spending problem, and the garbage-in, garbage-out problem. In particular, Finck and Moscon (2019, p. 93) the assertion that “Blockchains are append-only ledgers on which information can only be changed in extraordinary circumstances. They are unable to solve the garbage-in garbage-out problem”.
However, the assertion that information cannot be updated or validated across the Blockchain, removing this issue, is false. Hence, the authors present a biased approach. Finck and Moscon (2019) further argue that the regulatory force of computer code in Blockchain and smart contracts must be carefully considered to balance private ordering and public policy objectives. They discuss the potential for blockchain technology to disrupt DRM systems and the concerns related to algorithmic enforcement and control over digital assets. Finally, the authors propose statutory safeguards, mandatory permitted uses, and “fair use by design” approaches to protect users’ interests and promote copyright balance.
While Finck and Moscon (2019, p. 99) are partially correct in the assertion that the “technology is thus a forceful illustration of Lessig’s “code-is-law” paradigm, highlighting that it could be used to either enforce or undermine law”, this analogy of the technology being used to undermine lawfulness is premised on a false understanding of the concept of decentralization. They also emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary research and multi-stakeholder conversations to ensure responsible Blockchain and smart contracts innovation.
In examining the implications of blockchain technology for copyright law, discussing both the potential benefits and limitations, the authors judgmentally examine the use of smart contracts and blockchains in rights administration and DRM, highlighting the regulatory capacity and challenges of these technologies. The article offers insights into the tension between private ordering and public policy objectives, and it proposes some misapplied solutions to address concerns related to control, access, and fairness. The interdisciplinary approach and focus on responsible innovation make this article an interesting resource for researchers, policymakers, and stakeholders in the copyright domain. Yet, the authors’ lack of domain knowledge and failure to validate assertions made within the Blockchain industry undermine the value of the paper.
Zachariadis, M., Hileman, G., & Scott, S. V. (2019). Governance and control in distributed ledgers: Understanding the challenges facing blockchain technology in financial services. Information and Organization, 29(2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.03.001
Zachariadis et al. (2019) explore the governance and control challenges associated with blockchain technology in financial services. The authors highlight the complexities of distributed ledgers, emphasizing the issues of scalability, openness, interoperability, liability, transparency, security, and trust. They argue that addressing these challenges is crucial for Blockchain to achieve widespread adoption. Furthermore, the article examines the contrasting approaches to governance in public blockchain platforms, like Ethereum, and private financial infrastructures, such as SWIFT. Finally, the study emphasizes the need for robust governance mechanisms and interdisciplinary research to understand the geopolitical risks and implications of blockchain technology.
The authors point out that “[t]he risks from such a governance scheme can be further exacerbated during times of crisis and as the developers of the system try to agree on software code alterations to deal with the issue” (Zachariadis et al., 2019, p. 114). Overall, Zachariadis et al. (2019) provide helpful insights into the governance and control questions faced by blockchain technology in the financial services sector. The authors’ analysis of scalability, openness, interoperability, liability, transparency, security, and trust highlights the critical areas needing widespread adoption. Additionally, the comparison between public blockchain platforms and private financial infrastructures sheds light on the differences in governance approaches and the implications for trust and decision-making. Finally, the study emphasizes the importance of collaborative efforts, robust governance mechanisms, and interdisciplinary research to address these challenges and maximize the potential of blockchain technology in finance.
Zachariadis et al. (2019) then discuss the DAO hack and the Parity wallet incident illustrating the complexities of governance and decision-making within blockchain platforms. These incidents demonstrate the trade-offs and risks associated with the immutability of transactions and the need for flexibility in addressing vulnerabilities or bugs in smart contracts. Zachariadis et al. (2019) call for further research to explore solutions and mechanisms for enhancing the security, efficiency, and accountability of blockchain platforms. They also emphasize the entanglement of financial infrastructures with political dynamics, underscoring the need for a comprehensive understanding of the geopolitical risks and implications of blockchain technology.
Overall, this article systematically examines the governance and control challenges in blockchain technology, particularly in financial services. It offers dear insights into the critical issues that need to be addressed, such as scalability, openness, interoperability, liability, transparency, security, and trust. The study emphasizes the importance of robust governance mechanisms, interdisciplinary research, and collaboration among stakeholders to overcome these challenges and maximize the potential of blockchain technology. The analysis of incidents like the DAO hack and the Parity wallet freeze further underscores the complexities and trade-offs involved in blockchain governance.