The Mediachain Project: Developing a Global Creative Rights Database Using Blockchain Technology

Image from Pixabay

Image from Pixabay

When people are dating it is often said that they are looking for “Mr. Right” or “Ms. Right”. That is, finding someone who is just the right romantic match for them.

In the case of today’s rapid development, experimentation and implementation of blockchain technology, if a startup’s new technology takes hold, it might soon find a highly productive (but maybe not so romantic) match in finding Mr. or Ms. [literal] Right by deploying the blockchain as a form of global registry of creative works ownership.

These 5 Subway Fold posts have followed just a few of the voluminous developments in bitcoin and blockchain technologies. Among them, the August 21, 2015 post entitled Two Startups’ Note-Worthy Efforts to Adapt Blockchain Technology for the Music Industry has drawn the most number of clicks. A new report on Coindesk.com on February 23, 2016 entitled Mediachain is Using Blockchain to Create a Global Rights Database by Pete Rizzo provides a most interesting and worthwhile follow on related to this topic. I recommend reading it in its entirety. I will summarize and annotate it to provide some additional context, and then pose several of my own questions.

Producing a New Protocol for Ownership, Protection and Monetization

Applications of blockchain technology for the potential management of economic and distribution benefits of “creative professions”, including writers, musicians and others, that have been significantly affected by prolific online file copying still remains relatively unexplored. As a result, they do not yet have the means to “prove and protect ownership” of their work. Moreover, they do have an adequate system to monetize their digital works. But the blockchain, by virtue of its structural and operational nature, can supply these creators with “provenance, identity and micropayments“. (See also the October 27, 2015 Subway Fold post entitled Summary of the Bitcoin Seminar Held at Kaye Scholer in New York on October 15, 2015 for some background on these three elements.)

Now on to the efforts of a startup called Mine ( @mine_labs ), co-founded by Jesse Walden and Denis Nazarov¹. They are preparing to launch a new metadata protocol called Mediachain that enables creators working in digital media to write data describing their work along with a timestamp directly onto the blockchain. (Yet another opportunity to go out on a sort of, well, date.)  This system is based upon the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS). Mine believes that IPSF is a “more readable format” than others presently available.

Walden thinks that Mediachain’s “decentralized nature”, rather than a more centralized model, is critical to its objectives. Previously, a very “high-profile” somewhat similar initiative to establish a similarly global “database of musical rights and works” called the Global Repertoire Database (GDR) had failed.

(Mine maintains this page of a dozen recent posts on Medium.com about their technology that provides some interesting perspectives and details about the Mediachain project.)

Mediachain’s Objectives

Walden and Nazarov have tried to innovate by means of changing how media businesses interact with the Internet, as opposed to trying to get them to work within its established standards. Thus, the Mediachain project has emerged with its focal point being the inclusion of descriptive data and attribution for image files by combining blockchain technology and machine learning². As well, it can accommodate reverse queries to identify the creators of images.

Nazarov views Mediachain “as a global rights database for images”. When used in conjunction with, among others, Instagram, he and Walden foresee a time when users of this technology can retrieve “historic information” about a file. By doing so, they intend to assist in “preserving identity”, given the present challenges of enforcing creator rights and “monetizing content”. In the future, they hope that Mediachain inspires the development of new platforms for music and movies that would permit ready access to “identifying information for creative works”. According to Walden, their objective is to “unbundle identity and distribution” and provide the means to build new and more modern platforms to distribute creative works.

Potential Applications for Public Institutions

Mine’s co-founders believe that there is further meaningful potential for Mediachain to be used by public organizations who provide “open data sets for images used in galleries, libraries and archives”. For example:

  • The Metropolitan Museum of Art (“The Met” as it is referred to on their website and by all of my fellow New York City residents), has a mandate to license the metadata about the contents of their collections. The museum might have a “metadata platform” of its own to host many such projects.
  • The New York Public Library has used their own historical images, that are available to the public to, among other things, create maps.³ Nazarov and Walden believe they could “bootstrap the effort” by promoting Mediachain’s expanded apps in “consumer-facing projects”.

Maintaining the Platform Security, Integrity and Extensibility

Prior to Mediachain’s pending launch, Walden and Nazarov are highly interested in protecting the platform’s legitimate users from “bad actors” who might wrongfully claim ownership of others’ rightfully owned works. As a result, to ensure the “trust of its users”, their strategy is to engage public institutions as a model upon which to base this. Specifically, Mine’s developers are adding key functionality to Mediachain that enables the annotation of images.

The new platform will also include a “reputation system” so that subsequent users will start to “trust the information on its platform”. In effect, their methodology empowers users “to vouch for a metadata’s correctness”. The co-founders also believe that the “Mediachain community” will increase or decrease trust in the long-term depending on how it operates as an “open access resource”. Nazarov pointed to the success of Wikipedia to characterize this.

Following the launch of Mediachain, the startup’s team believes this technology could be integrated into other existing social media sites such as the blogging platform Tumblr. Here they think it would enable users to search images including those that may have been subsequently altered for various purposes. As a result, Tumblr would then be able to improve its monetization efforts through the application of better web usage analytics.

The same level of potential, by virtue of using Mediachain, may likewise be found waiting on still other established social media platforms. Nazarov and Walden mentioned seeing Apple and Facebook as prospects for exploration. Nazarov said that, for instance, Coindesk.com could set its own terms for its usage and consumption on Facebook Instant Articles (a platform used by publishers to distribute their multimedia content on FB). Thereafter, Mediachain could possibly facilitate the emergence of entirely new innovative media services.

Nazarov and Walden temper their optimism because the underlying IPFS basis is so new and acceptance and adoption of it may take time. As well, they anticipate “subsequent issues” concerning the platform’s durability and the creation of “standards for metadata”. Overall though, they remain sanguine about Mediachain’s prospects and are presently seeking developers to embrace these challenges.

My Questions

  • How would new platforms and apps using Mediachain and IPSF be affected by the copyright and patent laws and procedures of the US and other nations?
  • How would applications built upon Mediachain affect or integrate with digital creative works distributed by means of a Creative Commons license?
  • What new entrepreneurial opportunities for startup services might arise if this technology eventually gains web-wide adoption and trust among creative communities?  For example, would lawyers and accountants, among many others, with clients in the arts need to develop and offer new forms of guidance and services to navigate a Mediachain-enabled marketplace?
  • How and by whom should standards for using Mediachain and other potential development path splits (also known as “forks“), be established and managed with a high level of transparency for all interested parties?
  • Does analogizing what Bitcoin is to the blockchain also hold equally true for what Mediachain is to the blockchain, or should alternative analogies and perspectives be developed to assist in the explanation, acceptance and usage of this new platform?

June 1, 2016 Update:  For an informative new report on Mediachain’s activities since this post was uploaded in March, I recommend clicking through and reading Mediachain Enivisions a Blockchain-based Tool for Identifying Artists’ Work Across the Internet, by Jonathan Shieber, posted today on TechCrunch.com.


1.   This link from Mine’s website is to an article entitled Introducing Mediachain by Denis Nazarov, originally published on Medium.com on January 2, 2016. He mentions in his text an earlier startup called Diaspora that ultimately failed in its attempt at creating something akin to the Mediachain project. This December 4, 2014 Subway Fold post entitled Book Review of “More Awesome Than Money” concerned a book that expertly explored the fascinating and ultimately tragic inside story of Diaspora.

2.   Many of the more than two dozen Subway Fold posts in the category of Smart Systems cover some of the recent news, trends and applications in machine learning.

3.  For details, see the January 5, 2016 posting on the NY Public Library’s website entitled Free for All: NYPL Enhances Public Domain Collections for Sharing and Reuse, by Shana Kimball and Steven A. Schwarzman.

Does 3D Printing Pose a Challenge to the Patent System?

"Quadrifolium 3D Print", Image by fdecomite

“Quadrifolium 3D Print”, Image by fdecomite

Whenever Captain Picard ordered up some of his favorite brew, “Earl Grey tea, hot”, from the Enterprise’s replicator, it materialized right there within seconds. What seemed like pure science fiction back when Star Trek: The Next Generation was first on the air (1987 – 1994), we know today to be a very real, innovative and thriving technology called 3D printing. So it seems that Jean-Luc literally and figuratively excelled at reading the tea leaves.

These five Subway Fold posts have recently covered just a small sampling of the multitude of applications this technology has found in both the arts and sciences. (See also #3dprinting for the very latest trends and developments.)

Let us then, well, “Engage!” a related legal issue about 3D printing: Does it violate US federal copyright law in certain circumstances? A fascinating analysis of this appeared in an article on posted January 6, 2016 on ScientificAmerican.com entitled How 3-D Printing Threatens Our Patent System by Timothy Holbrook. I highly recommend reading this in its entirety. I will summarize and annotate it, and then pose some of my own non-3D questions.

Easily Downloadable and Sharable Objects

Today, anyone using a range of relatively inexpensive consumer 3D printers and a Web connection can essentially “download a physical object”. All they need to do is access a computer-aided design (CAD) file online and run it on their computer connected to their 3D printer. The CAD file provides the highly detailed and technical instructions needed for the 3D printer to fabricate the item. As seen in the photo above, this technology has the versatility to produce some very complex and intricate designs, dimensions and textures.

Since the CAD files are digital, just like music and movie files, they can be freely shared online. This makes it likely that just as music and entertainment companies were threatened by file-sharing networks, so too is it possible that 3D printing will result in directly challenging the patent system. However, this current legal framework “is even more ill-equipped” to manage this threat. Consequently, 3D printing technology may well conflict with “a key component of our innovation system”.*

The US federal government (through the US Patent and Trademark office – USPTO), issues patents for inventions they determine are “nontrivial advances in state of the art”. These documents award their holders the exclusive right to commercialize, manufacture, use, sell or import the invention, while preventing other from doing so.

Infringements, Infringers and Economic Values

Nonetheless, if 3D printing enables parties other than the patent holder to “evade the patent”, its value and incentives are diminished. Once someone else employs a 3D printer to produce an object covered by a particular patent, they have infringed on the holder’s legal rights to their invention.

In order for the patent holder to bring a case against a possible infringer, they would need to have knowledge that someone else is actually doing this. Today this would be quite difficult because 3D printers are so readily available to consumers and businesses. Alternatively, the patent laws allow the patent holder to pursue an action against anyone facilitating the means to commit the infringement. This means that manufacturers, vendors and other suppliers of CAD and 3D technologies could be potential defendants.

US copyright laws likewise prohibit the “inducement of infringement”. For example, while Grokster did not actually produce the music on its file-sharing network, it did facilitate the easy exchange of pirated music files. The music industry sued them for this activity and their operations were eventually shut down. (See also this August 31, 2015 Subway Fold post entitled Book Review of “How Music Got Free” about a recent book covering the history and consequences of music file sharing.)

This approach could also possibly be applied to 3D printing but based instead upon the patent laws. However, a significant impediment of this requires “actual knowledge of the relevant patent”. While nearly everyone knows that music is copyrighted, everyone is not nearly as aware that devices are covered by patents. 3D printers alone are covered by numerous patents that infringers are highly unlikely to know about much less abide. Moreover, how could a potentially aggrieved patent holder know about all of the infringers and infringements, especially since files can be so easily distributed online?

The author of this piece, Timothy Holbrook, a law professor at Emory University School of Law, and Professor Lucas Osborn from Campbell University School of Law, believe that the courts should focus on the CAD files to stem this problem. They frame the issue such that if the infringing object can so easily be produced with 3D printing then “should the CAD files themselves be viewed as digital patent infringement, similar to copyright law?” Furthermore, the CAD files have their own value and, when they are sold and used to 3D print an item, then such seller is benefiting from the “economic value of the invention”. The professors also believe there is no infringement if a party merely possesses a CAD file and is not selling it.

Neither Congress nor the courts have indicated whether and how they might deal with these issues.

My Questions

  • Would blockchain technology’s online ledger system provide patent holders with adequate protection against infringement? Because of the economic value of CAD files, perhaps under such an arrangement could they be written to the blockchain and then have Bitcoin transferred to the patent holder every time the file is downloaded.  (See the August 21, 2015 Subway Fold post entitled Two Startups’ Note-Worthy Efforts to Adapt Blockchain Technology for the Music Industry which covered an innovative approach now being explored for copyrights and royalties in the music industry)
  • Would the digital watermarking of CAD files be a sufficient deterrent to protect against file-sharing and potentially infringing 3D printing?
  • What new opportunities might exist for entrepreneurs, developers and consultants to help inventors protect and monitor their patents with regard to 3D printing?
  • Might some inventors be willing to share the CAD files of their inventions on an open source basis online as an alternative that may improve their work while possibly avoiding any costly litigation?

 


These seven Subway Fold posts cover a series of other recent systems, developments and issues in intellectual property.


If this ends up in litigation, the lawyers will add an entirely new meaning to their object-ions.

New Analytics Process Uses Patent Data to Predict Advancements in Specific Technologies

"Crystal Ball", Image by Christian Schnettelker

“Crystal Ball”, Image by Christian Schnettelker

John Oliver did a brilliant and hilarious takedown of patent trolls on his April 19, 2015 edition of his Last Week Tonight show. He raved about the absurdity of such companies who buy up patents and yet produce nothing much themselves other than lawsuits to enforce theses patents. As he said, this is a form of “extortion” that impedes progress and ends up costing the defendants in these actions a great deal of money. If you did not see the show or have not seen the video yet, please have a look and a laugh.

Then compare and contrast that economic fear and needless cost of using patent data in such a negative manner with the publication of a paper last week about how US patent filings are now being used in an entirely opposite, innovative and productive manner. The contrast could not be more dramatic. Indeed, as presented in a new paper published online on April 15, 2015 on PLoS One entitled Quantitative Determination of Technological Improvement from Patent Data, by MIT researchers Christopher L. Benson and Christopher L. Magee, mining recent filings in the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) massive database using their new methodology, can determine which technologies are genuinely advancing and at what relative rate.

This very exciting news was reported and analyzed in an article posted on Phys.org on April 15, 2015 entitled New Method Uses Patent Data to Estimate a Technology’s Future Rate of Improvement. I will sum up, annotate and add a few questions to this. I highly recommend clicking through on both this article for the details of how this prediction tool was developed and the full-text of the PLoS One paper for the granular details of how it actually works.

(For cross-reference purposes, this advancement follows on and partially mixes together the topics of two previous Subway Fold posts, one on April 9, 2014 entitled Comprehensive Visualization of Future Paths of Technological Innovations and another on August 8, 2014 entitled New Visualization Service for US Patent and Trademark Data.)

Benson and Magee have devised an analytical means to sift through the USPTO database for precisely choosing the latest patents that “best represent” 28 specific technological domains. These include, among others,  “solar photovoltaics, 3-D printing, fuel-cell technology, and genome sequencing”. Then, applying their methodology, based upon the number of subsequent citations in other new patent filings, they were able to determine those some of the relevant patents displayed an increased likelihood in predicting “a technology’s improvement rate”. In effect, the higher the rate of subsequent citation of Patent X, the higher the rate of innovation. The equations in their predictive tool also include some other patent characteristics.

Among the 28 technologies, those showing the highest rates of advancement were “optical¹ and wireless communications, 3-D printing, and MRI technology²“, while others with slower rates of advance included “batteries, wind turbines, and combustion engines”.

Benson believes that his prediction method could possibly be useful to venture capitalists, startups³. Magee hopes that it may be applied as a form of “rating system” for investors searching out potential “breakthroughs”. Both developers also foresee the possibility that public and private laboratories could use it to investigate potential new areas for research. Furthermore, Magee believes that their approach can be applied to lower the level of uncertainty about the future of a particular technology to “a more manageable number”.

My questions are as follows:

  • Would the accuracy of the predictions from this new system be enhanced by applying its underlying equations to add in other data sources such as online news, social media mentions, and citations to other relevant industry news publications? (X-ref to the December 2, 2014 Subway Fold post entitled Startup is Visualizing and Interpreting Massive Quantities of Daily Online News Content.)
  • Could the underlying equations be applied to other fields such as law to predict the possible outcomes of cases based upon the densities and propensities of cases cited in similar matters and jurisdictions? What about possible applications in medical research or the financial markets?
  • Can levels of probability be quantified with this new system? For example, can it derive a 70% probability that driverless cars will continue to gather technological momentum and then commercially succeed in the marketplace? If so, how might such probabilities be used by the public, governments, researchers and investors?

 


1Could references to patents for optical technologies also be considered, well, cites for sore eyes?

2.  X-ref a September 3, 2014 Subway Fold post entitled Applying MRI Technology to Determine the Effects of Movies and Music on Our Brains.

3.  There are currently 22 Subway Fold posts on a broad range of startups in many industries.

 

New Visualization Service for US Patent and Trademark Data

A new startup call Trea has just launched a new visualization tool that establishes a dynamic user interface to all of the patent data available on the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) massive public database. The full details of this appeared in a July 30, 2014 report on Gigaom.com entitled Powerful New Patent Service Shows Every US Invention, and a New View of R&D Relationships.

Trea’s UI not only illustrates whom is patenting what, but also types of fields (for example, data processing, telecom, chips, and so on). It is expected to be useful to inventors, corporate competitors, investors, journalists, academics, and I would also venture to say lawyers specializing in intellectual property practice.

The features described in this article along with accompanying screen captures include:

  • A “unified knowledge graph”, a networking representation of relationships between and among inventors.
  • A means to further zoom in on a single inventor and his or her collaborators.
  • A “notary feature” that permits inventors to encrypt and submit “diagrams and ideas” and receive a time-stamped receipt.

I suggest a full read of this story for the details of Trea’s business plans and the sampling of three highly informative graphics their product generates.

The visualization of government data sets continues to draw the interest of such entrepreneurs. Just to provide an initial sense of the breadth of governmental data available for these efforts, have a look at the categories and the data sets made publicly available by the US government can be viewed and downloaded at Data.gov. Similar data sets are available elsewhere online on the state and local levels across the U.S.

Furthermore, I once again recommend reading Smart Cities by Anthony Townsend as I wrote about in my April 9, 2014 post about the developers involved in transforming the availability and analytics of civic data.