Sorry to burst your bubble but the betamax case only protects manufactures of a product. In other words, Ian can't be sued for something you do with your node because freenet is capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
Also in general the reason the RIAA asks the ISP first, but shoots you first (besides the obvious reason of you not being able to fight back). Is because OSPs are protected by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA (it's not all evil after all.....). Even with encrypted data stores the RIAA would still be able sue you for violations of it's copyrights. Not being able to remove them probably wouldn't hurt their case much. This write up by the Florida Bar covers both those issues. http://www.flabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/0/a79cab7e1a590ea585256e7f005f57d3?OpenDocument -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 3:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Tech] freenet/ISP status, was:Showdown at the Freenode Coral Importance: Low Man, that was some funny shit in those discussions! ;-) Almost as funny as some posts on /. That said, the dudes' argument (finley?), is rather very, very moot. It's long since established (since the betamax case I believe, in the usa) that you can't be held liable for knowing that something *might* be used illegally, not even if you can reasonably assume it is mainly used for illegal purposes (if there are other, legal uses possible). That said, however, there might be a point in the ISP legal status that will probably apply to freenet too (as is the protection it gets from it); and that is, that an ISP has to remove the illegal stuff, when notified and under his control (ability) to do so. Now, I always tought that the dir where you stored the freenetchunks was extra encrypted too (above the normal encryption), but I recently read (IIP?) that it wasn't anymore. In that case, while there could still be discussion if a 'chunk' on itself is legal or not, and apart from the question if it constitutes entrapment or not, we *could* have a problem in that regard. If someone asks for a, say, copyrighted file, and gets it (or the chunks and their chk keys) from a node, he can then do what ppl can do with ISPs: ask for the IP, and treat the node he got it from as ISP, and demand that all infringing chunks are immediately removed. A bit of a tiresome thing. I would therefor argue - if this is not the case (anymore), to re-encrypt the whole storage with an extra layer of encryption, purely on the client side. It doesn't have to be very strong; even a mere 16 or even 8 bit encryption would be enough to alter the chks one can find in ones' node (visually), making it impossible for you to actually go look if the keys are there (in a recognisable way). Could be I'm preaching to the choir, however...is this being done, still? If not, wouldn't it be a good idea to do so? The Higher Gods can fill this in, no doubt. _______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
