Why this page exists
BLOXoffice is an early-stage platform. In September 2026 an internal accuracy review found that several of our own published pages and policies described features we do not have, specifically DRM content encryption and live blockchain and NFT functionality. Those statements have been corrected, and this page is the permanent record of what they said before and what they say now.
This is a standing record, not a one-time notice. If we find another inaccurate statement about how the platform works, it gets an entry here with its own date. Existing entries are never edited or removed to make the history look better.
None of the corrections below adds an obligation, narrows a right, or changes what anyone pays or receives. Every one of them withdraws a claim the platform could not support, or states plainly what the platform actually does. On that basis no re-acceptance was required, and this published record is what stands in place of a re-consent flow. The text as it read before each correction is preserved in the platform's version control.
What is accurate today
Read the entries below against these three facts.
Access is controlled by ticket entitlement
A BLOXoffice server checks that you hold a valid ticket for a film, then releases the stream. That check is the content protection. No digital rights management system is deployed on any playback path: no Widevine, no FairPlay, no PlayReady, no content encryption. Streaming is the only delivery method, and there is no download or offline option.
No blockchain runs between a purchase and playback
A ticket is a database entitlement record paired with a QR access credential. That is what the platform calls a soft-mint ticket. It is not a token, not an NFT, and not an asset on any distributed ledger. Payment runs through Stripe, and the 80/10/10 revenue split is computed and settled as a matter of contract and accounting, not by a smart contract.
Blockchain and NFT features are planned, not live
Every blockchain, NFT, and BLOX token capability is a roadmap item under a standing legal hold pending outside-counsel review. None of it is in use, and none of it is guaranteed to ship. Where a page describes one of these features, it is required to say so.
Corrections
One entry per document. Ten documents and pages were corrected on 2026-09-20.
Acceptable Use Policy
Click-accept policy
What was wrong
Section 4.2 prohibited “circumventing access controls, DRM protections, geographic restrictions, or age-gating measures.” Naming DRM told every user and every filmmaker reading the policy that BLOXoffice deploys a digital rights management system. It does not, and it never has.
What it says now
Section 4.2 now prohibits circumventing any access control, entitlement check, geographic restriction, or age gate the platform actually applies, plus any technical protection measure BLOXoffice adds in the future. A second prohibition was added covering capture, re-recording, re-transmission, and redistribution of a stream you accessed with a valid ticket, whether or not a technical measure was applied to it.
Why it was done this way
Deleting the DRM reference on its own would have left a gap. With no DRM deployed, the contract is the only thing standing between a paying viewer and redistribution of a filmmaker's film, so the policy has to say that directly instead of leaning on a technical measure that is not there. A new Section 4.6 now discloses the access-control mechanism plainly, including that no DRM is deployed and that streaming is the only delivery method, so that the Section 4.2 obligations are read against an accurate description of the platform.
API Terms of Use
Click-through developer agreement
What was wrong
Section 4 stated as present fact that “the BLOXoffice platform operates on the Algorand blockchain,” that tickets are NFTs recorded on a blockchain, that revenue splits execute through smart contracts, and that transactions are irreversible and immutable. Section 5 claimed BLOXoffice owns blockchain patents and deployed smart contracts. Section 3 required developers to attribute films as “distributed on the Algorand blockchain via BLOXoffice.” The footer read “Powered by Algorand blockchain technology.” None of that was true.
What it says now
Section 4 describes a ticket as a database entitlement record with a QR credential, states that no blockchain transaction occurs anywhere in the purchase, entitlement, or playback path, that no blockchain network fees apply, and that payment runs through Stripe with revenue splits settled as a matter of contract and accounting. Blockchain, NFT, and token capability is identified as a planned future feature under a legal hold that may never be implemented. Developers are now barred from describing BLOXoffice films as blockchain-distributed, NFT-backed, tokenized, or DRM-protected. A new Section 4.B states that no DRM scheme is deployed and there is no download or offline delivery. The false patent and smart-contract ownership claims were struck.
Why it was done this way
This is a binding agreement a developer accepts by using the APIs. A developer who built against the old Section 4 and repeated its claims to their own users would have been repeating ours. One old claim was inverted rather than deleted: BLOXoffice can correct, reverse, suspend, or revoke a ticket entitlement, so calling transactions irreversible and immutable disclaimed a power the cooperative actually holds. The corrected text says so.
Separate defect on the same page: the “Last updated” line rendered the current date on every visit, so the agreement always appeared to have been revised today whether or not anything had changed. For a document users accept, that makes version history unprovable. It now carries a fixed date that moves only when the text does.
Content Policy
Filmmaker-facing policy
What was wrong
Three claims. Bonus features were described as being added to a film “previously minted on BLOXoffice.” The merchandise section offered filmmakers “NFT-serialized merchandise” as an available capability. The enforcement section listed “NFT Freeze/Clawback” as a remedy BLOXoffice could apply to a violating film.
What it says now
Films are described as published rather than minted. Merchandise is described as ordinary goods sold under the Merchandising Addendum, with an express statement that BLOXoffice does not currently offer NFT serialization, blockchain-backed authentication, or any token-linked merchandise, and makes no representation that it will. The enforcement remedy is now ticket entitlement suspension or revocation, which is a thing the platform can actually do, with a cross-reference to the Refund Policy for a viewer whose paid ticket is revoked through no fault of their own.
Why it was done this way
An enforcement remedy stated in a policy is a remedy the cooperative is representing it will apply. Listing one the platform is technically incapable of performing is an idle threat that undercuts the credibility of the real remedies sitting beside it. The refund cross-reference was added because revoking a paying viewer's ticket over a filmmaker's violation raises a consumer-protection question the old text ignored.
DMCA Policy
Copyright takedown notice
What was wrong
Section 4.1 was labelled a planned feature but was written in present and future-certain tense (“When BLOXoffice mints...”), which read as though NFT minting was occurring or imminent. It also volunteered a limitation on the cooperative's own takedown capability, stating that BLOXoffice cannot delete existing NFT assets from the Algorand blockchain.
What it says now
Section 4.1 is recast in the conditional and opens with an affirmative statement of the present position: BLOXoffice does not mint NFTs, no BLOXoffice ticket exists on any blockchain, and the subsection describes only how a notice would be handled if NFT ticketing is implemented later. Until then Section 4 governs in full, and because every ticket is a database entitlement record BLOXoffice can suspend or revoke outright, a takedown is complete and nothing survives removal.
Why it was done this way
The old framing described a handicap the platform does not have. Present takedown capability is complete removal, and a safe-harbour position under 17 U.S.C. §512 should not have to work around a self-imposed limitation that is not real.
IP Documentation
Public representation page
What was wrong
The page described “a hybrid approach combining blockchain verification with traditional DRM,” listed streaming DRM content encryption as a protection layer, and stated that NFT-based proof of ownership is required for access. It also described an NFT revenue-sharing model in present tense with specific percentages, including a rental split rising to 45% for ticket holders, and stated that investors receive NFTs based on their investment percentage. It carried a green badge reading “CPA & Attorney Audit-Ready,” and no attorney had reviewed it. The revenue split shown on the page was inverted, giving 80% to the platform.
What it says now
The live page describes ticket-gated streaming access control, the correct 80/10/10 split (80% to the filmmaker, 10% to the cooperative, 10% to the promoter, with the promoter share reverting to the cooperative when there is no promoter), and labels blockchain and NFT functionality as planned and under legal hold. The false audit-readiness badge is gone.
Why it was done this way
The revenue-sharing model was the more serious problem, and it was not a DRM issue. Describing a ticket that earns its holder a share of other people's viewing revenue, and tying instrument allocation to investment percentage, argues every element of an investment contract on the face of our own page. Publishing that under a disclaimer is a worse position than not publishing it. The blockchain and NFT model content was archived internally for future reference rather than deleted, and it will require its own securities review before any part of it is revived.
Investor Overview and investor deck materials
Investor-facing material
What was wrong
The same category of false blockchain and NFT claims, aimed at investors specifically. The material also carried securities-adjacent language, including the line that every viewer can become a stakeholder and an “investor matchmaking” premium-services revenue line, and an out-of-date team and board section. A duplicate of the inaccurate deck lived inside the deck-download page, and the function that emailed the deck described BLOXoffice as “the blockchain-powered platform.”
What it says now
The blockchain and NFT claims are corrected, the securities-adjacent language is removed, and the team and board section is accurate. The investor deck download page and the function that emailed the deck were retired outright rather than left serving corrected-but-stale material. Both now return a clear notice.
Why it was done this way
Investor-facing material carries the highest consequence for an inaccurate capability claim. Retiring the deck was the cleaner answer than maintaining a corrected version of a document that should not be circulating at all right now.
Platform Stats
Public informational page
What was wrong
The page title and description advertised blockchain metrics, total NFT mints, and on-chain transactions “powered by Algorand blockchain.” A panel headed “100% Blockchain Verified” claimed that every transaction, every NFT, and every metric is transparent and immutable on the Algorand blockchain, with a “Verify on Blockchain” link pointing at a testnet explorer.
What it says now
The statistics are described as sourced from BLOXoffice's own ticket, transaction, and payout records, which is where they have always come from. On-chain verified statistics are identified as a planned upgrade that remains on legal hold and is not part of today's numbers. The testnet explorer link is removed.
Why it was done this way
The numbers themselves were never wrong. The claim about where they came from and what guaranteed them was.
System Documentation
Technical documentation page
What was wrong
Core design principles listed “Blockchain-Native: All tickets are Algorand NFTs with immutable ownership” and “True Ownership: NFT tickets enable resale, rental, and collectible markets,” and described all financial transactions as recorded on-chain via smart contracts. The technology stack, backend function list, and known-limitations section all described a blockchain system as the live architecture, including limitations about on-chain confirmation times and irreversible NFT transfers.
What it says now
QR soft-mint ticketing is identified as the live system, with tickets described as database entitlement records carrying a QR credential rather than blockchain assets. Blockchain and NFT ownership is listed separately as planned and under legal hold. Transactions are described as recorded in the platform database and audit log. The stack and secrets listings separate what runs today from what exists only for planned, hold-gated features. The known-limitations section now states outright that no DRM or content encryption exists on any playback path and that streaming is the only delivery method.
Why it was done this way
This page is what a developer, auditor, or prospective partner reads to understand the architecture. It was describing a system that was designed but not built.
Site-wide search and social preview text
Default page metadata
What was wrong
The fallback title and description used by any page that did not set its own read “Independent Film Distribution on Blockchain” and “Watch and own independent films as NFTs. BLOXoffice empowers filmmakers with blockchain-based distribution.” That is the text a search engine or a social card would show for those pages.
What it says now
The fallback title identifies BLOXoffice as an independent film distribution cooperative, and the description says that viewers watch and support independent films direct from their filmmakers, who keep 80% of revenue. No blockchain or NFT claim.
Why it was done this way
Found while building this page. It is listed here rather than fixed quietly, because a correction record that omits a correction is worth less than no record at all.
Other informational and admin pages
Informational copy and one access control
What was wrong
The Algorand feature page described content protection as delivered today through on-chain freeze and clawback capability. A beta-pass admin page credited ownership verification to DropChain's asset indexer, a deprecated integration. Separately, an admin token-distribution tool was live and ungated, and its own copy presented on-chain governance as part of the cooperative's current governance process.
What it says now
The Algorand feature description is relabelled as designed-but-not-built and on legal hold, with content protection today identified as ticket-gated streaming. The beta-pass description now names the actual asset lookup, notes that DropChain is deprecated and no longer part of the flow, and states that this admin-configured beta gate is separate from the live customer ticket system, which involves no blockchain call. The token-distribution tool is now withheld behind the same feature flag as the other blockchain admin tools.
Why it was done this way
The last item is a control change rather than a wording change. A working admin tool that signs and broadcasts real on-chain transfers is not an acceptable state under the blockchain legal hold, regardless of whether anything in the interface linked to it. On-chain governance is not part of how this cooperative governs itself today, and the page said otherwise.
Reviewed in the same sweep and found accurate
The review covered every public policy page, the public informational pages, and every live contract template. These needed no correction, and it is worth naming them so the scope of the review is clear.
Filmmaker Distribution Agreement: the live executed agreement already states that soft-mint tickets are not blockchain tokens, are not NFTs, and are not assets on any distributed ledger. It makes no DRM claim. This is the house standard the corrections above were measured against.
Sales Agent Agreement and the SEED of DOUBT distribution agreement: both affirmatively state the blockchain and NFT legal hold, and bar either party from representing those features as available.
Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and the Promotional Ticket Allotment Policy: all three already carried correctly drafted “planned but not yet implemented” language.
Refund Policy, AI Disclosure Policy, and the remaining contract templates: no content-protection, DRM, or blockchain representations of any kind. The Refund Policy's only crypto reference is a negative one, stating that refunds are not issued in tokens or cryptocurrency, which is accurate.
If you are a filmmaker
Filmmakers decide where to license a film partly on the strength of what a platform says it does to protect content. If any of the corrected statements above mattered to a decision you made about BLOXoffice, or you were shown material containing them, write to legal@bloxoffice.net and say so. That is a real invitation, not a formality.
The executed Filmmaker Distribution Agreement was reviewed in this sweep and was already accurate on every one of these points. Where the agreement and any page on this site disagree, the agreement controls.
Questions about an entry on this page: legal@bloxoffice.net
The People's Film Cooperative DBA BLOXoffice · Minnesota Chapter 308B cooperative association · MN SOS File No. 1651992200039
Not legal advice. This page records changes to published documents; the documents themselves, and the agreement you signed, are what govern.