But I can't come up with a principled legal reason to distinguish between them,
Now we are getting somewhere. I told you this was not a very easy issue and it is a condition precedent to so many other arguments.
So I am curious to hear more about the argument that BTC could be protected by copyright - either the private keys ("wallet"), or the abstract idea of value which is represented on the blockchain and is controlled by the keys.
A few days ago I ran into a very prominent IP attorney and legal theorist who has published a few IP focused books and a book about online contract formation. He was gracious enough to spend about 15-20 minutes answering a few of my questions in the hallway. I objectively explained the Bitcoin facts, as best as I understand them, and asked if any property rights could attach and if so what kinds. He probed me further on more specific facts, etc. The bottom line was probably not, as I suspected, but he would do some additional research on it because he found the topic very interesting (particularly the part about being able to form contracts/meditation with 2 of 3 keys signing a transaction, etc.).
Anyway, just some more shoulder shrugging I suppose.
In many ways, Bitcoin is reinventing the
Torrens title system, except that the underlying good is an intangible shared expectation of value, not real estate; and there isn't one central registry, but a decentralized peer-to-peer registry.
And given that real property could theoretically be titled in the blockchain and actually be
more secure than a typical registry with
big banks engaging in false affidavits, counterfeit court summons, etc. ..... it remains to be seen what else might flow out of this new math problem known as Bitcoin.