On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 10:07:06PM +0200, Jerome Flesch wrote: > > And 99.999% of users will take the pure-opennet route, unfortunately. > > > > It is entirely legitimate to debate what advantages darknet has, and > > even to create advantages artificially in order to encourage users to > > behave in a sensible fashion. We already have code which restricts what > > users can easily do in order to ensure that the network works (i.e. load > > limiting). Providing incentives for darknet is exactly the same > > principle. > > > > I am reluctant to support opennet - and so is oskar apparently - until > > we have decided how we are going to tempt users from opennet to darknet. > > It really is critical that we build a substantial darknet, because of > > recent events. Freenet being banned in a western country is no longer > > science fiction. The DADVSI has just passed in France, including the > > Vivendi amendments; it may still be blocked by the Constitutional > > Council. > > > Even if DADVSI is passed, the case of Freenet remains debatable. In fact, > DADVSI says that it's forbidden to develop networks being explicitly designed > for illegal file sharing. As you can guess, this is stupid: How judges will > define if a network is designed for that or not ? It's even more true for > Freenet, as the main goal is the freedom of speech, and clearly not illegal > file sharing.
I thought that DADVSI said it was forbidden to develop a p2p network which doesn't provide for takedown of copyrighted information? That's what nextgens said. If it is as you say then maybe we can get away with it. But if the caselaw builds up a "best practice" argument that you can build something if you let copyright owners block files, then we're in trouble, unless we make an expensive constitutional argument. > > > Hopefully it will not come into force until after our 2 french > > SoC students have finished thier work, otherwise we're in serious > > trouble. > > > I'm not sure that the Freenet project has to worry about it because it's not > a > french foundation. So in the worst case, I think it will only have an impact > on nextgens and myself. > > In any case, they will attack the classical p2p networks (as eDonkey) in > first. So when DADVSI will be passed, I think we will have at least some > months before they find us. > > > At the EU level the IPRED2 could have the same effect (unlikely > > to enter into force in less than 2 years though, and there's a chance > > it'll be blocked by the FFII, but not if they push the community patent > > at the same time). -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060630/84799857/attachment.pgp>
