Interview with Penn Law Professor Tonya Evans: Can the Law Keep Up with Cryptocurrency?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Interview with Penn Law Professor Tonya Evans: Can the Law Keep Up with Cryptocurrency?
Technology does not exist in a vacuum, which means it must comply with the laws we have all agreed to follow.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsSource: TheVerge Decoder special series
Translation: FastDaily
At the end of last year, I asked our producer to find better ways for us to cover cryptocurrency and Web3 on Decoder. It's no secret that I'm quite skeptical about crypto, but I wanted to be honest about that skepticism—while also making sure I clearly saw its opportunities and benefits. We've done several episodes on Bitcoin and DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations), and over time, we'll do more.
Many Web3 ideas seem to directly collide with existing legal systems in complex—and sometimes even fascinating—ways. The NFT world seems to have an impressionistic understanding of copyright law. DAOs aren't legally recognized as entities in most states. So technically, they can't do anything in the real world. Yet all these things still exist, and at some point, the law will have to catch up.
So today I spoke with Tonya Evans, a law professor at Penn State Dickinson Law School. She teaches intellectual property law, copyright, and blockchain. She also hosts the podcast Tech Intersect, which covers the intersection of law and technology. She has spent a lot of time thinking about crypto assets and how they interact with the law. Tonya’s view is that we shouldn’t abandon many of the legal frameworks we have today—we just need them to adapt to this new internet.
Me, trying to impress a law professor as a law student—I’ll drop some notes:
1) Tonya and I mentioned the "four corners" of a contract. That’s lawyer slang for what a contract explicitly covers.
2) We talked multiple times about “partnership law,” meaning how different types of companies are treated under the law. A “general partnership” is a default form—everyone in the company is an equal partner and responsible for everything the company does; an LLC is structured to protect individuals from being liable for the company’s actions. Right now, most states don’t recognize DAOs as any kind of formal business entity, which means they’d be treated as general partnerships, where everyone in the DAO would be personally liable for its actions.
3) We also discussed copyright law extensively: the current U.S. copyright law was passed in 1976, with some updates in 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). You’ll hear us talk about “copyright maximalism”—the idea that copyright should cover a lot, and rights holders should have strong control over how their work is used—versus “fair use,” which holds that people should be freer to use and modify works for public benefit.
It sounds like a lot, but believe me, it’s fascinating.
This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.
Tonya Evans is a law professor at Penn State Dickinson Law, where she teaches entertainment law, intellectual property law, and blockchain—topics that overlap significantly with our show. Welcome to Decoder.
Thank you so much. Great to be here.
We have a lot to talk about, but let’s start with you. You’re both a lawyer and a professor, with a long background teaching IP and entertainment law. How did you get into teaching about cryptocurrency and NFTs?
Back in 2017, I fell down the proverbial rabbit hole trying to understand what blockchain really was and how it related to crypto assets. More broadly, people were focused on the idea of cryptocurrency, but I use the broader term “crypto assets.” I didn’t believe in magical internet money run by tiny goblins. I’m licensed in four states—if this had any connection to illegal activity, I wouldn’t touch it, because I want to protect my licenses. Personally, I’ve always been an early adopter of tech, even though I don’t have a science or technical background. For me, it was important to at least figure out what all this was, and what it meant for the next wave of lawyers who must serve entrepreneurs and technologists actually building the future today.
I started paying more attention to distributed ledger technology—that’s a fancy way of describing blockchain. I also began working at the intersection of IP and blockchain, especially copyright. There were a lot of open-source projects, and you had these public records of transactions and balances, which fascinated me. I started getting calls from people who wanted to build on top of Layer 1 blockchain infrastructure. They wanted to monetize it, so I needed to familiarize myself with the technology to give them the best advice—mostly to entrepreneurs and startups in the space. I also wanted to educate the next generation of lawyers so they truly understand the IP issues emerging in what we now commonly call Web3.
So that was in 2017. By 2022, I’d say your prediction was correct.
That’s right.
There are so many forces at play. It seems the legal framework hasn’t kept pace, making some of these issues more complicated. Culturally, the term “Web3” is now mainstream. Everyone’s talking about it. It’s just days after the Super Bowl, and you and I are discussing crypto ads flooding cities. From your vantage point, having followed this for about five years—is crypto mainstream now? Is this the inflection point where everyone needs to understand it? Or are entrepreneurs, tech journalists, and lawyers building a framework to make crypto mainstream?
We’re still very early. The first blockchain—the Bitcoin blockchain—launched in 2009. We’re in transition, but it’s still early days. Beyond tech experts or cypherpunks, or those on the fringes of tech or finance, there are now more mainstream users. That’s why millions of dollars are being spent on Crypto Bowl—those epic ads during the Super Bowl from Coinbase, FTX, and Crypto.com. No one’s paying me, by the way.
But when advertising dollars are used to reach people not already on the edges, that shows it’s truly touching the collective consciousness. In the broader financial markets, crypto is still a very small piece. Even though big banks and traditional institutions have known about this technology for a while, only recently have they been forced to pay real attention. Now crypto is a customer service issue—they want to ensure they keep their market share and maintain control over their customers. Financial institutions want to bridge the gap between those who don’t understand crypto and tech, so customers continue using their products.
These are financial products. One thing that always impresses me about tech companies is how they disrupt incumbents: you ignore the regulatory environment that incumbent companies have to pay for. I often think of YouTube—it dominated video streaming early by essentially ignoring copyright law. Take Viacom: Viacom could never have built YouTube, because they’re the incumbent. Their lawyers would have stopped them, so they could never have posted content to a site they created. YouTube was like, “We don’t have lawyers. We’re just a bunch of people.”
“Lawyer-schmawyer,” right?
Exactly. For the overwhelming profits they now generate in this space, the cost of compliance and lawsuits from Viacom were worth it. This is just a model for how internet companies get built. Do you think that’s how crypto companies relate to banks now? Do you think they’re ignoring their regulatory environment and saying: “We’ll eventually pay the price, but it’s worth it to get where we need to go?”
That’s interesting, because when I think about pre-corporate crypto life, the whole point was decentralization—no centralized, formal structure to deliver the “product.” That goes against the original spirit and ethos of crypto, which was like, “We may not know or trust each other. We don’t trust government. We don’t trust big corporations. We trust code. We’ll share this common code across all these different computers, and it’ll be tamper-proof. It’ll operate outside the traditional system.” Parts of the internet, including Web1 and Web2, were built similarly. When you talk about regulatory impact or the perception of a lack of regulation, I don’t fully agree. I know if I have a crypto wallet and you have one, we can exchange value peer-to-peer, just like MP3 files—but I don’t believe in “sharing,” because I’m an IP lawyer.
Look, I was a bad copyright lawyer because I defended kids who got sued for using Kazaa.
Then I thought, “This is too depressing. I need to do something else with my life.”
Right? I read all those great cases—Napster, Grokster, Kazaa. But your point is valid. I attribute it more to startup culture and entrepreneurship—you move fast, break things, then figure it out. The cost and overhead of doing business isn’t just aimed at traditional corporate structures, but more at entrepreneurs. Technology is moving at an astonishing pace. I almost compare it to labor pains. We’re getting closer to something truly epic. It’s moving so fast that we really don’t have time to sit back for two, three, or ten years waiting for Congress to pass legislation or judges to make rulings. That’s just how tech moves. This is no exception—it’s a technological innovation disrupting financial markets and nearly every other sector in some form or fashion. Blockchain and/or crypto assets are having an impact, and they’re moving very quickly.
I think you do a great job distinguishing between cryptocurrency and crypto assets. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other stores of monetary value need to be regulated like money. But when you say crypto assets, you mean NFTs, other crypto products, DAOs. To me, it’s like a gold rush: you threaten big banks, threaten the U.S. federal government. The train has left the station. You threaten our nation’s established copyright norms. Maybe nothing happens until you piss off Disney. They haven’t moved.
To me, this seems to be where I keep seeing NFTs and DAOs stumble: when they hit existing regulatory structures. When NFT products bump into copyright law, when DAOs bump into general partnership law, bad things happen. Why do you think there’s a gap between entrepreneurs and their innovative capabilities?
I think we haven’t done enough. By “we,” I mean big corporations and all the IP issues in general, especially copyright. In the Web2 world, peer-to-peer tech brought all kinds of copyright infringement. There were lots of terms around sharing. I think it’s absurd, especially given the lawsuits from the music industry and others.
Those are the ones I defended.
Exactly.
I think they’re completely absurd.
It’s incredible. Doesn’t matter how old you are—we’ll sue you. That was terrible for the music industry. Classic case of winning a battle but losing the war. You see other sectors watching, realizing that even if they’re technically right on the legal issue, pursuing it might be terrible for business. There are other concerns—maybe trademark, where you have an affirmative duty to police your mark. With copyright, you don’t have a clear obligation, and there’s a lot of acceptable infringement to attract consumers. We saw a lot of that in Web2, but it also set the stage for ordinary people’s understanding of and relationship with copyrighted information.
When they’re artistic terms, there’s a complete lack of understanding about fair use or public domain. You and I know they’re legal terms with specific definitions. But some people think, “If it’s on the internet, it must be free: ‘If I can right-click and save it, I can use it.’” Social media lets us copy and share things. When you think about the Section 106 rights—reproduction, distribution, creation of derivative works, public display or performance—all of these are routinely done on social media. I think most people don’t understand the difference between ownership, licensing, and the ability to use.
Then transfer that to the non-fungible token space—tokens aren’t creativity, but they’re linked to creativity. They digitally represent a right or connection to something else. What we usually mean now is some creative or collectible thing, so we’re just encountering it again with new tech. It raises old problems that weren’t adequately solved—just another iteration of the technology.
One of our main points at The Verge comes from our features editor Sarah Jeong: the only effective law on the internet is copyright law. It’s the only legal regime everyone acknowledges and that actually produces results. If you want YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter to take something down, your chances of success aren’t guaranteed unless you come at it through copyright law. If you go through copyright, you can just open the DMCA portal, file a takedown request, and YouTube might comply. This law has real power online, unlike nearly every other law. Everything gets filtered through copyright, whether appropriate or not. We see this pattern repeat over and over.
I think we see consumers doing this too. I think the average consumer knows more about YouTube’s DMCA policy or TikTok’s music rights policy than they do about local traffic laws, because they repeatedly encounter the application of these regulatory systems in their lives.
It took a long time to get here. Obviously, platforms didn’t want to do this because they felt it was bad for business and didn’t want to be copyright cops. We went through all that—six times, maybe three. But the DMCA branding—people might not even know what it stands for, but they definitely know the acronym because so many have gotten DMCA takedowns for everything they’ve shared. Add to that people not reading terms and conditions, and this creates a very real connection to pure contract law or other regulatory/legal regimes.
They can run all the ads they want. Nobody cares unless there are consequences. That had a massive impact on platforms. They want to use the DMCA safe harbor, so they push it onto consumers. They try a friendly approach, but then you get a notice. After several notices, you not only lose access to the product or platform—you might lose internet access altogether.
That’s DMCA. By the way, you’re right—we didn’t even say what it stands for.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Everyone listening today gets an A. If you take away nothing else from this interview, at least learn what DMCA stands for.
But pair that with NFTs—everyone knows copyright law.
Yes.
As most people experience it, you could strongly argue that copyright is the only effective law on the internet. NFTs are like a gold rush: people copying each other’s NFTs. There’s copy-minting—one NFT launches, someone immediately takes all the files and copies them. There’s widespread, deliberate disregard for copyright law in some NFT projects—project leaders just use other people’s trademarks and works to make NFTs. Then they hire lawyers and complain about getting takedowns.
That seems insane to me, but it’s true. Why do you think people deliberately ignore potential copyright law? Isn’t the value of an NFT partly that you can restrict who copies your work?
Yes. It’s mostly speculation—pure greed for money. When you think about art for art’s sake, there’s a definitive part of the NFT space focused on culture—not just art, but value derived from owning something desirable to collect, rather than just another fungible token. We have many speculators in the NFT space—meaning Bitcoin and Ethereum in the world are interchangeable. Using dollars as an example, even though each bill has a serial number, it doesn’t matter which one you have because they’re all worth the same. Non-fungible tokens are unique and potentially have extraordinary value. We’ve seen some sell for $69 million, and everyone cheers. It’s easy to do. Since the late ’90s, digital tech, P2P tech, and the internet have made creating near-perfect or perfect digital copies extremely easy, and they can be sold quickly across OpenSea and the world.
There are several minting and sales platforms, each with its own methods. We’re doing DMCA takedowns, but it takes a long time.
By then, the NFT may already be sold. NFTs tied to infringing artwork often sell well. Our problem is we can’t easily identify the people behind them; while crypto and public wallets are anonymous, in most cases they’re not truly anonymous—so there’s a misconception here.
This already happened in Web 2.0: photographers banded together last year to file a class-action lawsuit. Many famous photographers are worried about people sharing their photos on websites. People pull images from Instagram and use them as backgrounds in articles—this happens mostly in entertainment. Photographers say, “I want to share it on social media, but not on your website.” They came together saying this is a pattern and practice of infringement, and Instagram hasn’t done enough to prevent rampant violations that affect nearly every photographer. I think such class actions could positively influence these minting platforms. It’s not something we can discuss today, but there are already enough concerns about OpenSea that we might see similar cases soon.
The Instagram case is really interesting. The Verge covered it—a group of photographers suing Instagram. These photographers claim, basically, “You allow people to embed our Instagram posts and profit from them.”
I think most netizens would say, “What are you talking about? It’s Instagram. Of course anyone can embed it. Sharing is the point of a post.” These photographers are now suing not just to change internet norms but to set a precedent. The only reasonable outcome is that Instagram must add a control saying this post is not embeddable, or if you want to embed it, you must pay us, and then that money flows to—who knows where.
Yeah. Good luck.
Right. But suing someone to make them do something—back when I was in law school, I was told you can get damages, but you can never force someone to act. No court will order someone to do something. That’s the hardest thing. Suing Facebook to make them add controls to their software seems really difficult.
But stepping back, these photographers’ work is being used for free. How do we fix that? I don’t know how to fix Instagram’s issue. Do you think any Web3 or blockchain product can solve this? That’s the promise I keep hearing, right? Turn everything into money, and money flows more freely—especially to creators.
The NFT space is a great example of things that were sitting on the proverbial IP shelf, gathering dust. NBA Top Shots said, “Hey, maybe we can monetize this in the NFT space,” and gave it a second life. Creating value and value flow is important. I don’t think we’re powerless. Do the technological capabilities exist? Short answer: yes—but what’s the cost to platforms? Because it’s an added business expense. They certainly don’t want to do it. Let’s analogize to privacy: the same companies say, “We can’t use our tech capabilities to protect you from various privacy threats.” But when you go to European countries, the same companies ask, “Do you want our cookies? If not, that’s fine—you can turn them off.” Your privacy experience is completely different when using a VPN or when you’re in Europe versus the U.S.
That means the tech capability exists. When companies are forced to do something to operate in a specific geographic region, they do it. I bring this back to our discussion on NFTs and copyright: if they’re required to do it to do business, they will. If not, they won’t. That’s why we see many companies spending heavily lobbying Congress to minimize what they’re required to do. Once they’re forced to do something, from a regulatory perspective, it’s a slippery slope.
Similarly, I think we see this in privacy law, antitrust law, and of course market regulations. Do you see it in copyright law? It’s the slowest-moving area of law but impacts everyone the most. This disconnect has always fascinated me: trying to get a group of internet users to change how they think the internet works—something you may never achieve. There are creators saying, “Hey, I’ve been getting ripped off,” while platforms in the middle say, “Yes, we’re getting rich.” Instagram and YouTube are making more revenue than ever.
Maybe you build some Web3 tech that pays creators micro-Bitcoin payments whenever their work is shown. That’s a huge promise, but these platforms don’t seem capable of delivering it.
Well, it’s coming—just a bit slower. In the Ethereum world, there’s a token standard—ERC-1155, I believe. Now, maybe five platforms use it instead of ERC-721 (ERC-721 being one of the original NFT standards, a piece of code in a smart contract).
So taking these token standards as examples: you have lines of code, and as long as you use them, you can build on top, but the core creates either ERC-721 or 1155. But 1155 is creating the minting capability you described—not only enabling downstream revenue participation on the same platform but cross-platform. If I sell something on Rarible or SuperRare, and the next buyer sells it on another platform, as long as that platform recognizes the 1155 standard, the original creator keeps getting paid. The problem now is you only get paid if it’s sold on the same platform where it was minted. The real game-changer is being able to go cross-platform, to buy, sell, trade these NFTs.
But it’s happening. It’s operational on some sites. More minting platforms recognizing this additional standard will enable the micropayments you mentioned in the NFT space. I think this is very important for creatives, and I believe we’ll start seeing changes as more creatives—not just consumers—enter the space. That’s what Web 2.0 was about: at this moment, there’s a larger market to sell almost anything—obviously, you attach it to an NFT. So what will we attach NFT tech to?
Beyond creative and collectible uses (which are the hot things now), we’ll see extraordinary applications representing certificates and identity. I just left school minutes ago. If I had to go back to my high school to get my diploma, it might cost money and time. Who has time for that? But if diplomas could be represented via NFT tech, that could be really cool. We’re not fully there yet, but these are coming.
Returning to your initial point about consumers becoming creative: once people say, “You know what? I want to make money from what I create,” they start caring. If they consume without a necessary creative link, they don’t get it. Because they want to use it, they don’t want to pay for it. That’s it. But when people are selling something, they don’t want to be ripped off—that’s when people start noticing what copyright actually protects, what it means, and how they can use it.
I don’t consider myself pessimistic. I’m more skeptical. We live in a world where every internet participant is somehow a creator, right? People tweet; they post on Facebook; they make TikToks.
But not for value.
Exactly. They’re not doing it for money, but they’re entering this space.
The controversy around TikTok dances: when a TikTok dance becomes famous, Epic Games turns it into a Fortnite emote—who gets paid? A large group of netizens says, “Hey, somehow this video game turned a cultural moment everyone owns for free into real money. It should go back to us.” Then a string of cases follows. Alfonso Ribeiro, the actor who played Carlton in “Fresh Prince,” did a famous dance. He tried to sue Epic Games, saying, “You stole my dance.” To me, that’s like—no, our goal isn’t to maximize copyright law, turning every little thing you do in the world into potential infringement, but to somehow share the value of these shared cultural moments and have more of them. That’s what you really want. You want a richer cultural life.
You come from copyleft, where everything wants to be free.
That’s me. I’ve always been that way.
But I don’t see balance, and I certainly don’t see any movement changing actual laws. If I’m wrong, please correct me, but what I hear from you is: eventually more people will be included in the value, our norms will shift. Our interaction with the law will change because more people will understand what the law means, what their rights are, and how they should engage. I’m not pessimistic—I’m skeptical. I think the law needs to change. And I don’t see any sign of that happening to accommodate NFTs and the broader internet.
So why exactly do you think we should change the 1976 copyright law and make adjustments here and there? What makes you think we need a new law in 2022 when we already have a perfect 1976 law?
DMCA came from the millennium. Maybe only 20 years old.
Yes, 1998. I misremembered.
But even so, they didn’t anticipate how the internet would evolve.
Not at all.
What do you think needs to change?
Our governance systems are built slowly. Congress, even in its best times, moves slowly. Technology doesn’t. From piano rolls to today, technology advances, but we haven’t kept up with sufficient protections. Historically, copyright law wasn’t designed for ordinary people. Initially, it was just about publishers earning money for creators. Over time, it’s “evolved,” but only so far. We’ve expanded subject matter, but as you point out, that expansion hasn’t helped ordinary people truly grasp the extent to which they can leverage these rights.
You’ve worked with many who believe attribution alone suffices—some don’t even care about attribution. I think social media fuels this. In your view, maybe we’re drifting further from that. But the law is what it is. Whether it’s enforced, and how and in what ways—that can change over time. But I see a force within the creative NFT community—not dramatic, but significant. People are deeply unsettled by what happens in their work and do a lot of self-policing. You can put stolen stuff on an NFT. You can make all the infringing NFTs you want. But once the community finds out and attacks you on #cryptotwitter or #NFTart, the game’s over. Your tokens become meaningless, worthless. They shut it down before anyone files a small claims suit in copyright court. Is that a thing? I haven’t kept up. Should’ve been this year.
They say it’s coming. That’s exactly my point. We’ve been talking about this for two years. I teach it every year, and honestly, I don’t know the status of the small claims copyright court. Who has time? Even to sue, people must first register their copyright. Most don’t. So they self-regulate within the community. Fortunately, the creative NFT space is community-driven. That’s how you see all these PFP projects sell out in 15 minutes, or amazing one-off projects succeed. There’s a community backing it. If someone’s a rogue actor in that community, their tokens ultimately become meaningless. Maybe that’s the norm we’ll see: extralegal territory, possibly the best outcome to avoid overregulation, which in copyright could also be problematic.
Are there any cases you’re following that are actually entering the court system?
I haven’t seen any. It’s still so early. We’re just starting to see cases on the fungible side, like settlements with the SEC on crypto lending. You can see some cases and enforcement actions from a securities angle. We see the CFTC waiting in the wings. The SEC has taken some enforcement actions, but far fewer in the NFT space.
NFTs have only blown up in the past two years, so we’re just beginning to see public attention. Regulators want to understand what’s happening in this space. I saw Commissioner Hester Peirce—the “Crypto Mom” at the SEC—recently write that the SEC needs to carefully examine and perhaps provide guidance on NFTs and when they might be considered securities. They haven’t enforced it yet, let alone gone to federal court.
What brewing controversies might meaningfully change the law?
Specifically, projects that really brush up against securities boundaries: you send someone a pile of money, you trust them, they promise you investment returns at some future date. That starts violating SEC rules and regulations. But many projects are close to DAOs—coming together to raise funds, like Constitution DAO trying to buy the Constitution. Pooling money to buy something sounds a lot like crowdfunding. Crowdfunding differs greatly from securities, but raising money through advertising, hoping to profit from others’ efforts, definitely conflicts with securities laws.
Something that looks like a DAO—a cool idea to buy something—but if it starts dividing profits, does it begin violating SEC rules? We have these fragmented non-functional test projects. If it exists now and you want to buy one, that’s one thing. Let’s all buy the Mona Lisa. But if we’re pooling money into a common enterprise aiming for investment returns someday, that’s problematic.
I want to talk about DAOs now, but let me wrap up the NFT section. We had Scott Belsky, Adobe’s chief product officer, on Decoder. He told us they’ll let people prepare NFTs for minting in Photoshop. That’s something they’re rolling out.
You mentioned OpenSea. They’re the biggest NFT platform. It’s actually interesting. At The Verge, we encountered our first fake NFT. I went to our lawyer, thinking, “What do we do?” But they just have a DMCA portal—submit a request, super simple. Same as other social platforms. Do you think these companies have more responsibility than they currently do to oversee IP and copyright issues? Are they in the right zone? Is there appropriate pressure on them?
At minimum, they must comply with existing laws. Many aren’t. They think, “Great—we’ll let you mint. You’ll mint freely, we’ll all make money, and live happily ever after.”
Then people knock on the door: “Oh, but that’s actually mine.” That becomes a problem. We heard the same from internet providers and online services: “We’re just providing the conduit. We connect people so they can do their thing, and we’re not involved—except we’re making money.”
That’s where secondary liability comes from. From a legislative standpoint, there’s a push: if they do certain things, give them at least some chance to avoid secondary liability. Minting platforms aren’t different. Beyond the standard DMCA notice-and-takedown, what else is appropriate? There’s a key difference: for platforms storing files on IPFS, the file persists. Taking it down from the public-facing part is one thing, but as long as it exists on IPFS, is it really gone? I don’t have an answer yet, but this isn’t an issue with centralized storage, where you can not only easily remove it from public view but also delete it twice. Obviously, it’s easier behind closed doors. With Web3 and decentralized file storage, it’s not as simple as in Web2.
For me, this is one of the most complex things. I’m glad you brought it up. In nearly every other non-blockchain case, if you use state power in your dispute, the state can take something away: you illegally copied my photo and hung it on your wall, I sue you. I can take it down. It’s out of the system; I can destroy it. If you did massive money laundering and got a big pile of money you shouldn’t have, the government can go to your bank and pull the money out of the system.
With blockchain, as far as I know, nobody can remove anything from the blockchain. It feels like it changes not just our relationships but society itself. Have you seen any legal or philosophical thinking on this?
With blockchain, we’re talking about timestamped records of transactions and balances. Sometimes, in the notes field, you’ll see references to other files, but the record of what happened at a given time is separate—from the decentralized file storage issue, it’s less controversial or problematic than we might assume, bringing us back to BitTorrent. Some aspects will persist over time.
But regarding your point: what if we have inaccurate records of events? Accuracy means it’s recorded at a specific date and time, but what if it’s linked to something inaccurate?
Or illegal.
Or illegal. How do you handle that? But the record of an event is different from the event itself. I’m not sure the record is that problematic. In fact, considering illegal activity: public blockchains are terrible places to record illegal acts—as you know from recent reports (a notorious rapper named Razzlekhan allegedly found with billions in stolen Bitcoin).
Have you heard their rap songs?
I try not to, because I want to protect my ears. I don’t want to be associated with it. I don’t want the cyber police knowing I’m listening.
We’ll play Razzlekhan on Decoder.
Maybe it’s playing in the background and I don’t even know.
We won’t buy those rights.
Alright. Fine. Contacting them now would be hard unless you can go straight to prison.
Do you own non-fungible timber?
I can neither confirm nor deny, but I do own my ENS (Ethereum Name Service) domain because even if I don’t use it, I want to ensure no one else does, so I had to buy up everything similar to Tonya Evans. Just like my domain. I bought as many as I could think of: Tonya Evans, Tonya M. Evans, IP Prof Evans. I had to buy them all.
Most professional IP lawyer answer. I want to prevent any infringing use, so I bought everything related. Good.
Yes.
Final question, then
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
