BitLibs™

Preserving Public Information On The Ethereum Blockchain  

Essential legal texts with proof of ownership stored on the Ethereum blockchain.  All carefully selected, transcribed, and minted as non-fungible tokens ― NFTs ― by a collective of international lawyers and artists, NFT Legal™.

With the spirit of decentrally preserving the fundamental truth that We are Born Free.
***
Made possible by BitLibraries™ and The Law Office of Matthew Huzaineh, PC

Why NFTs of Legal Texts?

Throughout history, libraries and centralized stores of information have been subjected to attacks and destruction: From the burning of Xianyang Palace in 206 BCE ― to the Deutsche Studentenschaft's organized attack on the Institute of Sex Research in 1933 ― to the systematic burning of hundreds of thousands of books in the Mosul Library by ISIL in the 2010s. The examples are countless and difficult to accept.  

Today, in the era of cyber attacks, centralized digitally stored information can be destroyed or stolen in an instant. This new reality has created the need for decentralizing public information, and the opportunity to harness the Ethereum blockchain as a tool in doing so. 

NFT Legal™ is doing its part in decentralizing public information by minting NFTs of .TXT files ― called BitLibs™ (short for BitLiberties™) ― all of which are fundamental pieces of legislation or caselaw that uphold human rights.

How Are The Texts Selected?

Every BitLib™ NFT is minted only if it upholds a fundamental human right. Cultural subjectivity and bias is inevitable in this selection process, which is why NFT Legal™ is a multicultural collective.

Unfortunately, history has more legal decrees that restrict human rights, rather than uphold them. These examples include the Nuremberg Race Laws ― The U.S. Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine ― and even the The Code of Hammurabi, which codified slavery and trial-by-river.

Yet, many legal texts have emerged that preserve our rights. Some have even rectified past wrongs, for example the cases Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized homosexual marriage ― and Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine. 

Examples like Obergefell and Brown are among the texts minted as BitLibs™ for decentralized preservation as NFTs on the Etheruem blockchain.

What Makes BitLibs™ Unlike other NFTs?

Unlike NFTs that are minted as PDFs, JPEGs, or GIFs, BitLibs™ are minted exclusively in a .TXT format. Why does that matter?
  • NFT Irreplicability. Other NFTs minted as video, image, and audio files can be replicated without crediting the original minter. This is done in several ways, and usually involves simple file compression or decompression. That media can then be re-minted as a separate NFT that looks and sounds identical to the original, without the original minter receiving any credit. On the other hand, BitLibs™ are minted as .TXT files and cannot be replicated as long as the original exists in the Ethereum blockchain.
  • .TXT Replicability. Although each BitLib™ cannot be replicated as an NFT on the Ethereum blockchain, every BitLib™ can be identically copied and pasted elsewhere with ease. This allows non-owners to view, transpose, and execute text search functions (⌘f) that are essential to digital research and re-publication ― especially in academic and professional settings.
  • Information Preservation. Instead of decentralizing the preservation of art and media, BitLibs™ instead decentralizes written information. This gives BitLib™ owners the opportunity to serve as guardians of the information contained in their BitLib™. Once a legal text is minted, the same text will never be re-minted by NFT Legal™, even if the owner burns their BitLib™ after purchase.

Loving v. Virginia

(1967)

Starting Bid: 

.1 ETH
Specifics
  • Origin: United States
  • Type: Judicial Decision
  • Protection: Civil
  • Century: Twentieth
***
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Miranda v. Arizona

(1966)

Starting Bid:

.1 ETH
Specifics
  • Origin: United States
  • Type: Judicial Decision
  • Protection: Criminal
  • Century: Twentieth

***
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restricts prosecutors from using a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.

Regina v. Dudley and Stephens

(1884)

Starting Bid:

.1 ETH
Specifics
  • Origin: United Kingdom
  • Type: Judicial Decision
  • Protection: Criminal
  • Century: Nineteenth

***
The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 Q.B.D. 273 is a leading English criminal case which established a precedent throughout the common law world that necessity ― in this case starvation at sea ― is not a defense to a charge of murder.

The Declaration of Independence

(1776)

Starting Bid:

.2 ETH
Specifics
  • Origin: United States
  • Type: Legislation
  • Protection: Civil / Criminal
  • Century: Eighteenth

***
On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia in the Pennsylvania State House (now Independence Hall), approved the Declaration of Independence, severing the thirteen American colonies' ties to the British Crown.

Texas v. Johnson

(1989)

Starting Bid:

.1 ETH
Specifics
  • Origin: United States
  • Type: Judicial Decision
  • Protection: Criminal
  • Century: Twentieth

***
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag, which at the time were enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that defendant Gregory Lee Johnson's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Gideon v. Wainwright

(1963)

Starting Bid:

.1 ETH
Specifics
  • Origin: United States
  • Type: Judicial Decision
  • Protection: Civil
  • Century: Twentieth

***
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that in criminal cases states are required under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to provide an attorney to defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys.

R v. R

(1991)

Starting Bid:

.1 ETH
Specifics
  • Origin: United Kingdom
  • Type: Judicial Decision
  • Protection: Criminal
  • Century: Twentieth

***
R v R [1991] U.K.H.L. 12 is a decision in which the House of Lords determined that under English criminal law, it is a crime for a husband to rape his wife.

Obergefell v. Hodges

(2015)

Starting Bid:

.2 ETH
Specifics
  • Origin: United States
  • Type: Judicial Decision
  • Protection: Civil
  • Century: Twenty-First

***
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.

Marbury v. Madison

(1803)

Starting Bid:

.2 ETH
Specifics
  • Origin: United States
  • Type: Legislation
  • Protection: Civil / Criminal
  • Century: Nineteenth

***
The U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review—the power of the federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional.

Wisconsin Central v. U.S.

(2018)

Starting Bid:

.1 ETH
Specifics
  • Origin: United States
  • Type: Judicial Decision
  • Protection: Civil
  • Century: Twenty-First

***
For the first time, the Supreme Court of the United States acknowledges "Bitcoin" and "Cryptocurrencies" in a published judicial opinion.

Brown v. Board of Education

(1954)

Starting Bid:

.1 ETH
Specifics
  • Origin: United States
  • Type: Judicial Decision
  • Protection: Civil
  • Century: Twentieth

***
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that U.S. state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Court's unanimous (9–0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal", and therefore violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. v. Nixon

(1974)

Starting Bid:

.1 ETH
Specifics
  • Origin: United States
  • Type: Judicial Decision
  • Protection: Criminal
  • Century: Twentieth

***
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a unanimous decision against President Richard Nixon. The Court held that a President cannot use executive privilege to withhold evidence from a criminal trial, and ordered President Nixon to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to a federal district court.

© 2021. All rights reserved.