On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 07:07:46PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
<>
> > I guess the only other issue is whether people worried about being punished
> > for using a node might not be better off with a transient node? That would
> > not contribute to the network, but Oskar apparently thinks that a shielded
> > node would not contribute to the network, either.
>
> A shield node could be set to have a datastore size of 0, which could
> make it immune to the DMCA since it will then simply be acting as an
> anonymizing relay, however I would expect that normally these nodes will
> have normal node functionality.
Your back on legal loopholes. The fact is that the shielded node relies on
the existance of public nodes, so you have simply moved the target that
the enemy needs to have shut down.
I have said this before: Freenet is a network for ensuring people the
freedom of speech and communication. The DMCA is an American legislation
with the specific intent of the depriving people of those freedoms. Any
attempt to make Freenet "DMCA compliant" is either doomed to failure, or a
temporary measure relying on a legal loophole. Let us build a solid system
instead.
<>
--
'DeCSS would be fine. Where is it?'
'Here,' Montag touched his head.
'Ah,' Granger smiled and nodded.
Oskar Sandberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
