Subscribe to timtimtim.eth to receive new posts directly to your inbox.
Subscribe to timtimtim.eth to receive new posts directly to your inbox.
This article was written last year after Story Protocol's $54M raise was announced(Now we are $80M; time moved so fast). My initial motivation was to wrap up what I had written for my thesis and evolve it further with Story Protocol.
PS: I did not update any new information in this article, so please assume this is an old article.
The article aims to guide you through the transition from IP to Story Protocol, then explain how a token-bounded account can work with IP and what I researched during my master's degree.
What is IP?
What are the current pain points?
Blockchain, IP and Web3
Story Protocol
Mass Adoption barrier
In this section, we will understand what IP is and what rights it includes. We will also see how it functions within different countries' laws.
Let's start with copyright and intellectual property. Copyright and intellectual property are more complex than we think. We define IP as a mixture of multiple law terminologies, including but not limited to copyright, trademark, patent, etc. These terminologies help to define and protect the creator’s rights. As the owner of IP, you have the rights to sell, transfer or manage the privileges included within the concept. First, what are the types:
Copyright
Trademark
Patent
Trade Secrets
Copyright is often described as a "bundle of rights," meaning that copyright is not a single legal concept but is composed of multiple rights. These rights include but are not limited to, the right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, and adapt the work. Creators can grant these rights individually or in combination to third parties as needed, which gives copyright significant flexibility.
The diversity of copyright lies in the broader legal framework of intellectual property, where copyright is just one subset. However, this does not mean that copyright is secondary or limited. It is a powerful "entity" in its own right, capable of achieving various legal and commercial objectives.
In short, copyright is a legal mechanism for identifying and protecting the rights of creators. We live in a world of various creative expressions, such as literature, art, music, and even software, so we need a way to recognize the originality and ownership of these works, which is the role of copyright. Beyond the fundamental rights to reproduce and distribute, copyright also grants other rights to creators, such as adaptation and public performance, along with certain specific limitations and obligations.
Fair Use: In certain circumstances, such as education, news reporting, commentary, and research, people can use copyrighted works without prior permission. This is an essential exception in copyright law.
Creative Commons: Besides traditional copyright protection, there are more flexible licensing options like Creative Commons licenses, which allow creators to freely share their works and customize how others can use them.
Transfer and Licensing: Intellectual property owners can transfer or license their rights to others. This usually requires formal legal documents and may have certain obligations and restrictions.
Unlike other forms of intellectual property, such as trademarks and patents, copyright typically arises automatically without registration (though registration can provide additional legal protection). Additionally, different types of intellectual property can cover different aspects of the same product or service. For instance, a software program may have copyright protection for its source code and trademark protection for its brand name. Generally, intellectual property laws have an international dimension.
International Agreements and Organizations: Countries join organizations like the World Trade Organization's TRIPS and WIPO, setting minimum IP protection standards with some flexibility.
Regional Differences: IP laws vary by region; for instance, the U.S.'s "fair use" differs from Europe's "fair dealing."
Cross-border Issues: Digital globalization complicates cross-border IP issues, like a U.S. trademark needing registration in China for protection.
Thus, these laws allow inventors to obtain patent protection, businesses to obtain trademark protection, and creators to obtain copyright protection.
The previous chapter gave us a brief overview of IP, its differences, and its applications. Understanding the basics of IP helps us move on to the following two sections: the current issues with the existing framework and how blockchain could be a possible solution.
Before we move on, if you're interested, I suggest reading this paper by Sebastian Pech - "HOW BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY CAN CHANGE THE ADMINISTRATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED WORKS". This paper was beneficial during my thesis, highlighting the current system's shortcomings and proposing many ways blockchain can help resolve issues.
These problems not only limit creators' rights but also affect the entire value chain of copyrighted works, from production to consumption. The following sections will explore these issues individually and investigate how blockchain can offer feasible solutions.
Currently, we can segment issues within the existing IP system into five parts:
Issues of copyright confirmation
The issue of copyright fragmentation
Lack of transparency in usage and payment
Violation and infringement
As mentioned earlier, copyright is automatically created and does not require registration, but this automatic protection can be weak legally. While copyright registration has become more straightforward, the biggest challenge is proving you are the original creator. Traditionally, this requires extensive documentation and third-party verification, which can be time-consuming and difficult. This burdens many creators. Meanwhile, infringers may exploit the copyright or intellectual property without immediate consequence, harming the rightful copyright holders and potentially impacting their future sales and growth.
Copyright is often described as 'a bundle of rights,' meaning that it comprises multiple distinct legal rights, such as the rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, and create derivative works. While these rights can be individually licensed or transferred, the copyright registration process generally covers the entire bundle of rights without focusing on their separation. When different legal entities hold these rights separately, fairly distributing the associated revenues can be challenging, often requiring complex arbitration and management by third-party institutions. This issue involves both technical and legal complexities.
The main issue we are addressing is that the form of intellectual property (IP) is often ambiguous in the off-chain or real world. This ambiguity leads to a lack of transparency. Nearly all usage agreements and payments are governed by contracts. While gathering all these contracts can help define IP rights, the contract-based nature of this process often makes it difficult to manage and trace IP effectively.
Unequal distribution of benefits
The unequal distribution issue mainly includes two aspects
Profit distribution between creators and platform
Revenue sharing between creators and derivative creators.
First, let's discuss the relationship between platforms and creators. Typically, the revenue-sharing mechanisms of most creative platforms are pretty unfavourable to creators. For example, the profit-sharing models of platforms like Spotify and Apple Music have been widely criticized for leaving creators with a small portion of the revenue in the music industry. This has led to the rise of music NFTs (non-fungible tokens), which aim to return more profits directly to the hands of creators. A similar situation occurs on platforms like Amazon (for physical books and e-books) and Qidian (for online literature). These platforms often leverage traffic dominance to 'coerce' creators into signing unequal revenue-sharing agreements.
Secondly, let's examine the revenue-sharing issue between original and secondary creators. This problem is particularly pressing in today's digital landscape, as seen with popular mashup videos on platforms like Bilibili. These videos are often secondary creations based on original content. However, when these mashup videos generate profit, a significant issue arises: are secondary creators obligated to share revenue with the original creators? Currently, mechanisms to address this are almost non-existent. Most secondary creators do not voluntarily share their revenue with the original creators unless they have purchased the rights to create derivative works.
Infringement, plagiarism, and abuse are the three most troublesome issues in the current copyright system. These actions harm the original creators' legal and economic rights and expose its shortcomings.
Infringement: Authorization and Liability
Infringement typically involves using someone else's copyrighted work without authorization or beyond the scope of granted authorization. Such behaviour not only infringes on the legal rights of the original author but can also cause economic losses. Although the law has clear penalties, actual enforcement often finds it difficult to hold infringers accountable due to the challenges of evidence collection and the complexities of cross-border enforcement.
Plagiarism: Undermining Market Fairness
Plagiarism is an infringement that usually involves copying or imitating someone else's work without permission and passing it off as one's creation. This infringes on the original author's rights and severely undermines the creative market's fair, competitive environment.
Abuse: Deviating from the Original Intent
Copyright abuse typically arises from the improper behaviour of rights holders, such as malicious litigation or excessive licensing fees, which restrict the legitimate circulation of works. This behaviour undermines the fundamental goal of the copyright system, which is to promote innovation and information sharing.
Since the birth of blockchain, technology has already raised awareness in various industries. It is a key technology that could change copyright management, patent protection, and brand rights enforcement.
The three core characteristics of blockchain—transparency, traceability, and immutability—provide powerful tools for intellectual property management. Particularly in China, blockchain applications related to intellectual property are rapidly emerging. A typical example is AntChain's "China Copyright Chain," which represents the significant potential of blockchain technology in ensuring copyright security, promoting creators' rights, and simplifying copyright transactions. For instance, in the 2019 lawsuit where TikTok sued Baidu, blockchain technology was used for evidence collection.
But why is the combination of blockchain and intellectual property so close?
Confirmation of Rights: In the digital age, the speed of content creation, distribution, and sharing is swift, making it more challenging to confirm rights. However, blockchain technology provides a solution. It can provide an immutable timestamp for each piece of creative content, ensuring that the original creator's rights are not infringed.
Transparency: In traditional intellectual property management systems, copyright information, transaction records, and authorization details often lack transparency. Blockchain's openness and transparency ensure that all transaction records are available for public review, enhancing trust between copyright holders and users.
Traceability: In intellectual property infringement cases, tracing the source of rights and the transaction path is key. Blockchain technology's continuity ensures that every transaction, authorization, and transfer is permanently recorded, providing strong evidence for legal disputes.
In addition to these obvious advantages, blockchain has a more profound impact in the field of copyright, which is the assetization of intellectual property (IP).
Traditional management methods often find it difficult to transform this abstract intellectual property into highly liquid actual assets. But when we put these copyrights on the chain, this abstract right can be transformed or "assetized." This is similar to dataFi, which concretizes abstract data or rights into actual, tradable assets. At the same time, we can also play more tricks, such as pledges, loans, and fragmentation. These operations often require multiple legal contract signings in the traditional web2 world, but through blockchain and defi, we can simplify these processes.
Based on this assetization idea, we can further explore three key mechanisms:
IP Tokenization: This is the process of converting intellectual property into tokens. Once tokenized, these tokens can be freely traded on the blockchain, providing a new, efficient platform for trading intellectual property. This essentially "maps" digital world assets to reality, forming real assets, which can be seen as a "reverse RWA."
Application of Smart Contracts: Smart contracts can automate copyright-related processes, such as licensing and profit sharing. This improves efficiency and reduces the costs associated with manual management and legal processes. This automation and simplification process helps lower the barriers to property transactions, making them more popular and convenient.
Peer-to-Peer Transactions: A core feature of blockchain is its support for peer-to-peer transactions, which means that transactions are not restricted by region or currency. As long as both parties agree, the transaction can proceed smoothly.
Another core goal of smart contracts and blockchain technology is simplifying and automating traditional transaction and contract processes. The origin of this technology is to achieve a peer-to-peer trading system, thereby avoiding the intervention of intermediaries and additional costs. In property rights, a significant obstacle is the cumbersome document signing process associated with copyright transfers, licensing, and other related transactions. This is time-consuming and can sometimes lead to legal disputes and misunderstandings.
On-chain signatures provide a solution. By using blockchain technology, especially tools like Ethsign, both parties in a transaction can directly sign contracts on the chain. These signatures are encrypted, tamper-proof, and publicly verifiable. This means that traditional, cumbersome document signing and verification processes are no longer needed, and all transactions can be completed automatically and securely on the chain.
More specifically, a contract based on wallet signatures can be attached when property rights are on the chain. Thus, whenever someone wants to purchase, license, or conduct other transactions related to property rights, they only need to sign with their wallet, and the transaction can be automatically completed. This simplifies the transaction process and ensures its security and transparency.
This section will focus more on the tech layer, discussing the network effect and IP. Following SY’s recent threads, he quoted Chris Dixon's words: “The killer app of the internet is networks”. I strongly agree with the statement. In this networked world, the core of every application is people—or, more precisely, the nodes within the network. Similarly, considering each intellectual property as a node, these "IP nodes" could potentially form a vast network. However, the current intellectual property system does not adapt fully to this networking trend. Specifically, the existing system has the following problems:
Lack of transparency in copyright: Rights holders often find it difficult to track the usage of their works.
Lack of transparency in rights: Similarly, rights holders also find it challenging to know who or which organizations hold the usage rights.
These two issues limit the effective operation of intellectual property in the network environment. Complexity and multi-dimensional challenges: although the above issues are mainly concentrated at the legal level, intellectual property is more complex. When we delve deeper, we find this issue far more complicated than it appears on the surface.
Since S.Y once created a network novel platform, Radish, he has carried out a series of discussions from the perspective of novel IP. I agree with this direction because written works have excellent expansibility and operability. However, there are the following issues:
Low infringement cost: In the current environment, the cost of infringing on novel IP is very low.
Contradiction between original and derivative works: At present, derivative creations (derivatives) rarely or never give back to the original works. For example, on platforms like Bilibili and PEPE, we rarely see derivative creators showing respect for original creators.
The double-edged sword of an open network: Although the network's openness promotes the free flow of information, it also makes it more difficult for original creators to protect their works.
Quoting S.Y's tweet again, he explained the love-hate relationship between IP and platforms. In the previous chapter, we discussed the oppression between interests; the issue between platforms and IP begins with interests and ends with dissemination. The love-hate entanglement between the two is not just about interests. There is also the economic oppression of platforms in the growth space of new IPs. Existing content brands and IPs are also facing the oppression of platform economics, as platforms can precisely control the exposure traffic of various brand IPs. New IPs can only continuously optimize Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) to survive. Companies like Hollywood keep rehashing old IPs and constantly remaking them because of the high costs of creating new IPs, forcing them to spend their budgets on businesses that can yield adequate returns. (Quoting the story's tweet) The main reason is the lack of network effects in content, which must rely on huge content and marketing budgets to sustain itself. Suppose you think about it carefully, according to the traditional 2/8 rule, since platforms control traffic. In that case, it inevitably means that only a few top works will get more exposure, while the remaining works can only rely on luck and spontaneous promotion and publicity from fans. This means that only a small number of people will make money.
Summarizing the above points, the story protocol aims to solve the distribution problem, protect authors' rights, and create a new system. So what exactly have they done? S.Y interestingly mentioned the term Git. For those unfamiliar with version control, it might be a bit obscure. In a nutshell, Git is a distributed version control system. By using Git's core logic to create an IP management system or IP Repo, it realizes on-chain IP infrastructure, with the core components divided into 2 parts:
An on-chain IP repository stores IP, tracks allocation, and records on-chain. It is immutable, transparent, and traceable.
Composable IP modules, expanding usage methods, more freedom, and more autonomy.
Before delving into Story Protocol, let's review Git, a crucial tool in traditional software development. Git's core functions are version management and team collaboration, solving many challenges that development teams often encounter during collaboration. So, what does this have to do with intellectual property? As I previously mentioned in discussions about copyright, copyright is a collection of various rights. This means different people may hold different subsets of rights—for instance, some may have the right to create derivative works, others may have performance rights, and some may have multiple rights. This has an astonishing similarity to Git's concept of "versions." If we apply Git's logic to IP management, treating each IP as an independent repository and various rights as different branches or versions, then each IP will not only be enhanced in terms of scalability, programmability, and traceability, but each "sub-version" can also maintain its independence.
When IP transitions from an abstract entity to a concrete node, we can start "playing with Lego." Through modularization, IP gains more exciting and valuable ways to play. For example, co-creation, rights distribution, royalty distribution, and IPFi operations based on blockchain have become increasingly feasible. This is similar to the "data assetization" concept advocated in DataFi. By modularizing and encapsulating, we can add financial attributes to things that are essentially difficult to quantify, thereby unlocking new business and creation models. To some extent, this makes it easier for us to manage IP and scrutinize its usage. Here are some ideas combining Story Protocol and the third chapter:
IP Blocks: Like Lego, different IP elements (characters, storylines, settings, etc.) can be designed as pluggable modules. This will allow creators, investors, or fans to combine these modules to create new works or derivatives.
Dynamic Rights Management: Modular IP elements mean more flexible rights management. For example, one module may only contain "performance rights," while another may only contain "publication rights."
Decentralized Co-Creation: Through blockchain or other distributed technologies, all parties can collaboratively develop and improve IP modules without infringing on each other's rights.
Smart Contracts and Automated Royalties: Smart contracts use a modular design and can automatically distribute royalties for works jointly created by multiple creators.
Modular Financialization: Each IP module can be traded as an independent financial asset, increasing liquidity and funding small creators.
Module Interoperability: Different IP modules can achieve interoperability, so a character from a novel can easily appear in a completely different movie or game.
Community-Driven IP Development: Fans or communities can choose or improve IP modules through voting or other mechanisms, making IP development more democratic and diverse.
Currently, some concepts in articles based on Story Protocol are somewhat vague. The "network state" concept is overly dependent on users and the ecosystem. We know that IP has a significant issue, which is independence. For example, why can't we see a combination of Harry Potter and Twilight? I don't mean fan fiction; that is not an orthodox creation method. The reason is that the original IPs are independent and have their own storylines. Therefore, constructing such a network still requires users and the ecosystem. I think the future of infinite literature may lie here. However, in this way, I feel that the focus of Story Protocol is not on originality but more on co-creation or secondary creation. This might also be why the Story Protocol team describes IP as Git. Everyone can create their variants based on the original work, creating new stories, endings, and characters, and then merge characters from other IPs into infinite literature. I also agree with their team that the current copyright framework is not conducive to network openness principles. Looser constraints may bring new narrative methods.
I wrote this article mainly because my master's thesis focuses on research into on-chain copyright solutions, particularly in the literary field. Therefore, my understanding of this area might be deeper than that of the average person.
My core concept is to use the "NFT nested within NFT" model to achieve visual management of copyright. This means creating a separate NFT for each subsidiary right associated with the copyright (such as distribution, performance, derivative works, access rights, etc.). This method's main advantage is its high flexibility and transparency in copyright management.
Let me explain the user process in detail:
Registration and Cover NFT: Users first register on the platform, for example, by uploading a novel cover. The system then generates an NFT related to the cover for the user.
Creating Subsidiary Rights NFTs: Only users who hold a specific cover NFT can further create subsidiary rights NFTs associated with it.
The core idea of this framework is "rights decoupling." In the traditional copyright management system, although copyright and its subsidiary rights fall under the category of intellectual property, each right is treated as an independent entity. For example, a song might involve three rights holders: the composer, the lyricist, and the recording company. Each right might require an independent licensing, sales, or other commercial contract. While this method offers a certain degree of flexibility, it also introduces complexity in management. We can separate and independently represent these rights through NFTs, allowing each right to be traded and managed as an independent NFT.
Therefore, I propose to separate the property owner from their rights and directly associate this relationship with the property (i.e., the NFT). This way, users connect with the property NFT and then create various subsidiary rights through that NFT. The process can be simplified as User → Property NFT → Subsidiary Rights NFTs. Additionally, to ensure completeness and security, when users attempt to create subsidiary rights NFTs, the system will verify whether they are the holders of the relevant property NFT.
NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) are widely associated with PFP (Profile Picture) or artwork nowadays, but their actual application potential extends far beyond that. From the original definition of NFTs, they are designed to represent ownership of digital or physical assets. In the EIP (Ethereum Improvement Proposal), the definition of NFTs explicitly emphasizes their diversity, covering RWA assets, digital assets, and even liabilities. This means that the application scope of NFTs is much broader than commonly perceived.
For example, Uniswap uses NFTs to store liquidity pool data, making user transactions more convenient; Greenfield uses NFTs and the ERC-1155 standard to tokenize data, giving data actual economic value. These examples showcase the powerful potential of NFTs as containers for data and assets.
Further thinking reveals that the true value of NFTs might lie in the simplification they bring to asset management and trading. Traditional asset trading and management, especially for copyrights and intellectual property, often involve complex contracts and agreements and lack transparency. As a public and transparent digital certificate, NFTs simplify the trading process and provide a traceable history of rights distribution. This transparency and simplification bring revolutionary changes to asset management.
I first learned about EIP6551 before going to Lisbon in March 2023. I studied it specifically for the trip and developed a DAPP for a hackathon based on it. If I were to compare, I created a similar mechanism with much less flexibility and scalability. Let me explain EIP6551: the core idea of EIP6551 is to view NFTs as containers for wallets, associating NFTs with assets and building on this foundation to add more operations. The main advantages of this design are transaction isolation and permission isolation, which bring greater flexibility and security to asset management.
In Web2, each website is an independent entity that manages and controls users' data and assets. But in Web3, this narrative is reversed. Users become the centre, and websites and applications revolve around them. The advantage of this model is that users have greater control over their data and assets, but it also brings a problem: assets are difficult to separate. When a user's wallet is attacked or stolen, all assets associated with that wallet may be threatened.
EIP6551 provides a solution. By treating each NFT as an independent wallet, the assets associated with it are stored within, achieving asset isolation. This means that even if the main wallet is attacked, the assets in other sub-wallets remain safe if the attack does not extend to all sub-wallets. This design achieves risk and asset isolation, providing users with higher asset security.
In the chapters of Creader.io, we attempt to define a new property rights management framework through NFTs. However, as mentioned in my previous paragraph, due to the lack of asset isolation, once rights distribution increases, there will still be many inconveniences, such as asset transfer and fee calculation. EIP6551 can provide a new round of definitions on the existing framework. By associating each right or asset with an NFT, we can achieve the digitization and assetization of rights. Each NFT can be considered an independent wallet containing all information and transaction records related to that right or asset. This design simplifies intellectual property management and transaction processes, providing higher transparency and security.
Moreover, EIP6551 offers greater flexibility for trading and licensing intellectual property. For example, a music producer can associate their music work with an NFT and use that NFT as an independent wallet. When someone wants to purchase or license the song, they only need to transact with the NFT without directly negotiating with the producer. This design simplifies the transaction process, improves efficiency, and protects the rightsholder's interests.
Comparing Story Protocol and my solution, the biggest difference is between concretization and abstraction. Currently, Story Protocol discusses many abstract concepts, but the core idea is undoubtedly the same: aiming to solve the intellectual property issue. My solution focuses more on concrete implementation and operation, creating an independent NFT for each subsidiary right of the copyright through the "NFT nested NFT" model, thus achieving visualized management of copyrights. The core of this method is "rights decoupling," which separates the property owner from their rights and associates this relationship with NFTs. On the other hand, Story Protocol emphasizes openness and collaboration, providing a more macro and abstract perspective on the lifecycle and transactions of intellectual property. Story Protocol focuses on creating a system that can track the origin and evolution of intellectual property and provide frictionless licensing and modular mixing of intellectual property. Although both aim to solve the same core issue, their approaches and emphases differ. My solution offers a more specific and operational approach, while Story Protocol provides a more open and collaborative framework.
New technologies inevitably bring new pains and opportunities
Let's talk about the difficulties of blockchain and intellectual property. Innovating new technologies often brings many problems, just as new features disrupt existing logic. Let's discuss a few important points: technology adoption, plagiarism and infringement, and transaction transparency.
Human civilisation has progressed rapidly over the past 5,000 years; we have produced terabytes of data. In contrast, blockchain technology has only existed for over a decade. This time difference results in a significant learning curve, requiring stakeholders to invest time and resources to understand and adapt to this new technology. In the blockchain industry, user threshold is one of our main challenges. This novel and relatively complex technology requires much education and popularization work for ordinary users. Especially in a long-standing field like intellectual property, the difficulty of promotion and cooperation increases further.
The management and enforcement of intellectual property vary significantly between countries, as each country has its laws and standards. Although on-chain intellectual property may adopt a unified on-chain standard, this does not mean it can perfectly align with the legal systems of various countries. This sets extra barriers for governments in accepting and implementing this new technology. To overcome this challenge, we need an open and unified standard. Only when all participants follow this standard can countries make localized improvements based on it, simplifying the process and ensuring smooth cross-border transactions.
Finally, the attitude and involvement of the government are crucial. Generally, governments hold a conservative view towards accepting and regulating new technologies. To ensure the widespread application of blockchain technology in intellectual property, we need to establish close cooperative relationships with governments and regulatory agencies to ensure that the new technology aligns with existing laws and regulations.
Before discussing the two major topics of plagiarism and infringement, I want to clarify a point: a question my mentor once mentioned. That is, no matter how advanced the technology is, including blockchain, it cannot avoid or eliminate improper human behaviours such as plagiarism and infringement. We cannot fully control or prevent human behavioural choices. However, on-chain intellectual property provides us with a powerful tool, rights confirmation. In traditional intellectual property disputes, the whole process can generally be divided into evidence collection and adjudication stages. Through blockchain technology, we can significantly accelerate the efficiency of evidence collection, thereby shortening the entire dispute processing time. In short, applying this technology can speed up dispute resolution, reduce the resulting damage, and increase the cost and risk of infringement, thereby indirectly raising its criminal threshold. But no matter how we change the narrative, we can never avoid on-chain plagiarism of off-chain content, on-chain content, or plagiarism within the chain ecosystem. This may require assistance from the community and AI. Finally, let me explain plagiarism, which may be harder to understand than infringement. Strictly speaking, only a few types of plagiarism may occur, such as direct copying, rewriting, or structural and conceptual similarities. However, it is challenging to determine plagiarism on an inspiration level, such as games with similar gameplay but different cores, which do not constitute plagiarism.
One of the core advantages of blockchain technology is its transparency, which also brings challenges and problems. First, privacy issues have become a significant concern. Since all transactions are public and users are anonymous, creators' privacy may still be threatened, especially when it involves copyright transactions and revenue distribution. This could expose the creators' identity and reveal their transaction amounts and other sensitive information. Secondly, excessive transparency may bring risks. Although transparency can increase trust and verifiability, it may also lead to the leakage of information that should not be public, such as creators' contact information, contact details, etc. Finally, the immutability of blockchain data is a double-edged sword.
It ensures the authenticity and integrity of data. However, once data is added to the chain, errors or outdated information will permanently exist and cannot be corrected or deleted. This may lead to legal disputes or other problems, especially in intellectual property.
I've been planning an article on on-chain intellectual property (IP) because of my keen interest in IP and blockchain. While the market focuses on crypto, IP urgently needs innovation. Successful IP, like "Harry Potter," has immense value, but traditional IP management often restricts its potential due to platforms and intermediaries. Blockchain offers a transparent, fair, and efficient solution for IP management. By creating a decentralized ecosystem, we aim to overcome these traditional constraints. This article shares my views on why blockchain and IP should combine, hoping to inspire you and make IP management more just and prosperous.
