Latest news about Bitcoin and all cryptocurrencies. Your daily crypto news habit.
Over the past two years, the metaverse has become more and more well-known. Copyright and trade name owners are missing out on a vast new market because of this. Non-fungible tokens (NFTs), in particular, have given digital assets a lot of new options and made it possible to store value differently. This is because NFTs don't follow the same rules as fungible tokens. If you are a cryptocurrency enthusiast, you have probably considered the security of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
From an economic point of view, the best way to get resources to the people who need them most is to make a transaction. Since the Chinese government has always been against cryptocurrencies, they are called "digital collections" instead of "tokens" when traded there. Because of this, a non-fiat currency, or NFT, is not the same as a banknote of the same value, nor can it replace it. Instead, it stands on its own. More specifically, it is a unique digital good stored on the blockchain and can be bought, sold, and traded over the internet.
The plaintiff got RMB4,000 ($600) in fair compensation for economic damages and costs. The court told the defendant to take down any NFT works on the defendant's platform that broke the law.
The defendant said the following in response:
Bigverse was a third-party platform, and the works on the site were submitted by people who used it. Bigverse has nothing to do with this.
The platform only needs to look at the posts, and the works in question had already been put in a "black hole" for addresses, and steps had been taken to delete them and let people know. So, it didn't need to be told to stop infringing on the rights of others.
The defendant didn't talk about the NFT's blockchain or where its nodes were. Also, the defendant didn't say anything about the NFT of the work's obligations in the smart contract. This is because there is no law that says this must be done.
Since the Bigverse platform was a trading service for NFT operations, it was decided that it wasn't doing its job of inspection and care. The court decided that the defendant was guilty because their actions led to an infringement. Because of this, the Hangzhou Internet Court told the defendant to take down the illegal NFT works and pay QiCeDieChu 4,000 renminbi compensation.
As a lawyer, it is very important to pay close attention to these three parts of a case:
NFT trading platforms can also make money from the gas and transaction fees of NFT digital works. So, the digital collection trading platform should be responsible not only for "notice deletion" after the impact but also for a higher level of care before the impact.
The court decided that putting works on an information network is part of "information flow," which is not a direct spread of the works and doesn't change who owns or controls the works. So, it's not based on the "distribution right," and the "rights exhaustion" argument doesn't work here. So, the court decided that "exhaustion of rights" doesn't apply to selling NFT digital works.
The court said it was essential to find a new way to stop people from making copies of works of non-transferable intellectual property without permission. Since the trading of NFTs is based on blockchain technology and smart contracts, the NFT cannot be destroyed on any blockchains where it has been recorded after the transaction has been completed.
So, to stop the infringement, the NFT digital works that are breaking the blockchain need to be disconnected and sent to an address known as a "black hole." This step was taken because it is also about protecting the rights of people in the NFT area.
In China, the law doesn't change because of what a court says. Even so, how courts handle new types of cases, like the one the Hangzhou Internet Court is hearing right now, will continue to be an essential part of how the law is done in the future. The new decision is very important for Chinese and foreign companies in China's NFT area that work hard to protect their intellectual property rights.
These questions need more thought and answers before Chinese laws can be used correctly. China needs to find answers to all of these questions before it can move forward.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the views of Bitcoin Insider. Every investment and trading move involves risk - this is especially true for cryptocurrencies given their volatility. We strongly advise our readers to conduct their own research when making a decision.