> Again, the design properties of Tahoe blur the concept of whose data is > actually on the cluster. From the outside looking in, the contents of data > you provide to the cluster is cryptographically opaque. Unless they can > prove you have the cryptographic keys to access a particular piece of > content, you can make the argument that you literally had no way of knowing > that the encrypted data you are storing was in fact pirated content.
That's not necessarily true -- someone might claim to have told you that unlawfully copied content being stored; whether or not you had access to this data in unencrypted form may not actually matter. Quoting from: http://www.quizlaw.com/copyrights/what_is_contributory_infringem_1.php http://www.quizlaw.com/copyrights/what_is_vicarious_infringement.php Contributory infringement is one of the two types of indirect copyright infringement (vicarious infringement is the other type of indirect infringement). Contributory infringement occurs where someone knows that infringing activity is taking place and either induces it, causes it, or materially contributes to it. So there are two elements required to proving contributory infringement - that the infringer knew or had reason to know of the infringing activity (which differs from direct infringement, where the infringer doesn't have to have any knowledge or intent) and active participation in the infringement (which can include inducing it, causing it or contributing to it). So for example, if your brother has made infringing copies of a CD, and you know these copies are infringing and help create an e-bay listing for your brother to sell the discs, you have committed contributory infringement. Vicarious infringement occurs where someone has a direct financial interest in the infringing actions being committed by another and has the ability to control it, even if they do not know that the infringement is taking place and do not directly take part in it. One of the classic examples of vicarious infringement is where someone owns a swap meet, and somebody at the swap meet is selling infringing materials. The owner of the swap meet is liable for vicarious infringement because he receives a direct financial benefit and has the ability to see what is going on at the swap meet and prevent the seller from selling the infringing materials (by kicking him out). Has anybody looked into contributory & vicarious infringement laws to see how at-risk the operator of a system like Tahoe-LAFS might be to this type of litigation -- or to "fishing expedition" style lawsuits? -Jon _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
