In recent years, the concept of blockchain has been frequently mentioned by people. On June 28, the Zhejiang Hangzhou Internet Court issued a public judgment on a dispute over the infringement of the information network dissemination rights of works, and for the first time confirmed the legal validity of electronic data deposited with blockchain technology.
So, what are the specific circumstances behind the case, and why has this case become a case of concern? In the "2018 Copyright-related Hot Issues Media Seminar" held on August 4, Wang Yifei, the deputy chief of the Intellectual Property Division of the Zhejiang Higher People's Court, conducted a detailed analysis of the case from the perspective of the court's decision.
Blockchain is difficult to be tampered with and deleted
Wang Yifei first gave a vivid and detailed explanation of the blockchain. She said that the blockchain, as a decentralized database, is a series of data blocks that are related using cryptographic methods. Each data block contains information about a network transaction, which can be used to verify the validity of this information.
The three words "blockchain" have already indicated its inner meaning, that is, it is a network composed of multiple institutions or multiple companies' servers as nodes, and a certain node in this network will generate in a period of time. The data is packed to form a block. Then synchronize this block to the entire blockchain network. After receiving this block, other nodes on the network must verify the block. After the verification is passed, the block is added to its local server. After that, a certain node will add the newly generated data and the information of the existing block on the local server together to form a second block.
After the second block is formed, other nodes will also verify this block after receiving this block. After the verification is passed, the second block is added to the local server, and the first block is connected to the second block. After that, all data in the network is packaged into blocks in the same way, and the blocks are connected to each other, which forms a blockchain. From the perspective of its own operation process and the technical principles behind it, if you want to modify one of the block chain data, you need to modify all the block content after this block. At the same time, you also need to modify all the institutions in the block chain network and Modify the backup data on other servers. Therefore, the blockchain has the characteristics of being difficult to be tampered with and difficult to delete. As a storage method, it still has a very high reliability in preserving the integrity of the electronic evidence content.
Blockchain is used as evidence, and it needs to undergo completeness and authenticity review
In this case, which was pronounced on June 28, the plaintiff chose the blockchain deposit method to prove that the defendant published works related to the plaintiff’s copyright on the website operated by the defendant, that is, through a third-party deposit platform. Automatic crawling of infringing web pages and identification of the original code of infringing pages. At the same time, the two content of the infringing webpage screenshot and the original code and the call log are made into a compressed package, and the compressed package is calculated into a hash value and uploaded to two blockchains, namely, Gongzhengtong and Bitcoin blockchain. In this way, the plaintiff believes that the corresponding electronic evidence collection has been completed.
Wang Yifei said that there are three main criteria for the Internet court to determine the validity of evidence. First, the qualification of the evidence storage platform; second, the credibility of the technical means of obtaining evidence on infringing web pages; and third, the integrity of the preservation of electronic evidence. According to Wang Yifei, the court focused on reviewing the completeness of the content of the electronic evidence uploaded in this case. This review was conducted from two aspects, namely, whether the electronic data was actually uploaded and whether the uploaded electronic data was the electronic data in dispute in this case.
For judging whether electronic data is actually uploaded, two steps need to be taken. Previously, the evidence provided by the plaintiff was the process of depositing evidence, and what the court really needs to do is to check the technical principles of the evidence deposit process and determine whether the evidence provided by the plaintiff is actually uploaded. At the same time, determine whether the uploaded data has not been tampered with. For reviewing whether the electronic data is actually uploaded, it needs to go through two steps: First, the transaction hash value provided by the plaintiff can be searched on the Notary Pass blockchain. After searching, you can view the transaction value. The content and generation time of the hash value corresponding to the exchange. At the same time, according to the height of the block chain submitted by the plaintiff, the time of storing the hash value and the time of uploading the content can also be queried from the height of the block. The time displayed between the two has a certain sequence, but this sequence is reasonable. Based on the time generation rules of the blockchain itself, the court held that the height and generation time of the blockchain conform to the generation time in the call log and the time of the blockchain packaging rules of Notary Pass, and there is a certain logical relationship between the three. The second step is to compare the other blockchain with the two blockchains. The plaintiff binds the corresponding hash value to two blockchains at the same time, so the block height can also generate a hash value of a transaction in the Bitcoin blockchain. At this time, the court does not need to make a logical comparison of the generation time between them. It only needs to compare the hash value in the blockchain with the hash value stored by Gongzhengtong and find the difference between the two. The hash value is exactly the same, so it is determined that the electronic data was actually uploaded to the two blockchains at that time.
For reviewing whether the uploaded electronic data is the electronic data of the dispute in this case, it is through hash value comparison, the screenshot of the webpage including the code is obtained through the Google open source program to obtain the source code, and then a log of the call is packaged into a compressed package. Perform hash calculation. The value of this hash value is consistent with the value of the hash value stored in the blockchain. Under this circumstance, the court believes that the data involved in the case has been uploaded to the two blockchains, and the content has always been complete, and It has never been modified. This is the court's review standard for the integrity of electronic evidence.
The court is open and neutral with regard to new evidence deposit methods
In fact, this case is a simple copyright infringement case. However, because the plaintiff used blockchain technology as a method of depositing electronic evidence, and this method was supported and recognized by the court, the court also determined that the defendant had infringed accordingly. Behavior, which made this case the first blockchain deposit case in the country.
Wang Yifei believes that the special feature of this case is that the court interpreted the blockchain technology for the first time in its judgment, and at the same time, it made a judgment on the proof power of the blockchain technology through the certification standards of the evidence, which has a certain symbolic significance. So such a small case has become a case of much concern.
Summarizing this case, Wang Yifei said that the court still adheres to an open and neutral attitude in case analysis and determination of electronic evidence, including blockchain evidence. For new problems arising from new technologies, we still adhere to the standard of identification on a case-by-case basis. It will neither exclude or improve the evidence identification standards because blockchain technology itself is a new type of technical means, nor because of its technology. If it is difficult to tamper with or delete, the corresponding determination standard will be lowered, or the evidence validity of electronic evidence will be judged according to the relevant legal provisions of electronic evidence.
Stage Lights,Beam Lights,Stage Lights,Moving Head Lights
Guangzhou Chengwen Photoelectric Technology co.,ltd , https://www.cwledpanel.com