On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:04:41PM -0800, hal at finney.org wrote: > > The writing's on the wall here, folks. Ultimately I am afraid that > Freenet will not be legally runnable in the U.S. without a blocking > mechanism. I wouldn't rush to put it in unless or until people start > getting legal notices, but eventually the issue will have to be dealt > with. Either Freenet accepts that the U.S. market is off limits, or it > provides a means to block certain data. Neither is an attractive choice. >
You are probably right, but the Ninth Circuit's Napster decision suggests that if the Freenet design does not allow for simple blocking and removal, that that may be enough to limit the liability. So in short, if Freenet were to be designed in a way so that identifying material is difficult, it may reduce the liability. Of course, no one would ever do that ON PURPOSE in order to reduce liability. But, if the technical goals of anonymity require it, then... Practically, Freenet might lead to a reworking of the DMCA safe harbor if Congress does not like how the Courts treat it. Then the outcome of the DeCSS case becomes highly relevant (depending on how the Court decides the First Amendment issues) and everything is just a mess... A lot of these issues sort of came up back with the whole Media Enforcer scare. They will not go away. Troy _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://www.uprizer.com/mailman/listinfo/devl
