Quote from: BadGhost on July 12, 2016, 08:03:03 PM

Thanks everyone for a great answers. I will just promptly reply before going deeper for the sole reason I ended up in Italy and I am having sort of internet shortage.

As far as I understand copyright laws from the international BERN, WIPO and EUROPEAN 2009/24/ES view. I believe its like this. The Bitcoin (Ledger, code, Blockchain call it what you want) is the work, the creation of an author, never licensed and still used does not matter whether updated or not, because the other authors has the same rights as the first one. As such it shall be protected under the Copyright laws. The bitcoin as a medium of exchange, should be considered something else for this two reasons: 1. its created by code and therefore it does not have a direct author. 2. as there is no direct author it is not innovative and subsequently can not have the same legal protection as the Bitcoin.

Once again thanks for the answers I will do a better reply tomorrow.

I disagree with your reasoning and it seems to contradict legal theory, but I admit I do not know your laws.
I personally don't know your laws, but below is my understanding and would be my reasoning.

My additions are in bold and my deletions are striked out.

The Bitcoin System (which includes all aspects and results of the code or protocol being enacted ~~Ledger, code, Blockchain call it what you want~~) is the work, the creation of an purposefully unknown author, and given an MIT License for all to use without claims or rights of ownerships and ~~still used~~ does not matter whether updated or not, because the other authors (Developers) have the ~~same~~ rights to use (add to, subtract, etc) as ~~the first one~~ granted from that original MIT License as long as it continues free use after every version and marked so. Thus, ~~As such~~ it shall not be protected under the Copyright laws even from the original author at any time, due to that original free release which now is public record and common knowledge, which in turn, voids any rights to any form of ownerships. The bitcoin as a medium of exchange, should be considered the same as the protocol ~~something else~~ for these two reasons: 1. bitcoin (the medium) is ~~its~~ the purpose and intent of the ~~created by~~ code and therefore is the code, and is not a separate part, but is the code's full manifestation, and not an unintended byproduct~~it does not have a direct author~~. 2. the creator/author is unknown and uncredited for a purpose which enforces the intention of non-ownability or copyright claims. The author purposefully released the system as open source free for all to use with an MIT License and as such, the bitcoins created and distributed through this code has ~~there is no direct author it is not innovative and subsequently can not have~~ the same legal protection as the Bitcoin System. The creator never intended for bitcoins, the medium, to be legally or technically separate from the code. In fact, bitcoins only exist within the confines of the Bitcoin code and if you take those bitcoins out from the Bitcoin code, they are no longer bitcoins, and become a different coin entirely or are just outright destroyed. Technically, bitcoins do not actually exist anywhere, except within the Bitcoin blockchain. Thus, bitcoins & Bitcoin are actually a single entity and that entity is protected under the original free use from Late 2008 / Early 2009.

The above paragraph should not be considered a legal opinion, but only my personal opinion on this issue.
If you are going to present or perform an action based upon the comments in this thread, you should be aware
that you should received a full and proper legal opinion from a licensed counsel within the jurisdiction that this applies.