If you are correct (which I doubt), then virtually any open source effort will be illegal, because it is extremely unlikely that they will have the resources to debug the network on a totally separate network with entirely controlled traffic and no real users. We cannot just go build a 10,000 node test network distributed across 3 continents. Perhaps some of the commercial startups can, but we can't. Not supporting our users is also a great way not to have any users.
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 03:04:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Does any network besides freenet do that? > And the caching isn't done by the people who created the networks its done by the > people who run the program. > The reason the law suits against the companies are failing is because they don't > have an active role in the network they created. There has been only one company > (that I can think of anyway) that actively took part in their network, Napster. And > we all know what happened to them. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:52 PM > To: Findley, Matthew; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the > Freenode Coral > Importance: Low > > > None of the networks that have been sued do unsupervised caching? > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 02:42:36PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > While not totally sure what your referring to I'll assume you mean the creators of > > the program or the company that owns them. > > In which cases its because they're not doing anything illegal. You can make > > something that can be used in an illegal way as long as you don't use it that way. > > (Guns, knives, cars, video cameras, computers... ect) > > Until (god forbid) the INDUCE act passes your free to make what ever you want. > > But that doesn't mean you can use it however you want. > > Show me a case where the person uploading music has won. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:20 PM > > To: Findley, Matthew; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the > > Freenode Coral > > > > > > What about the cases where P2P suppliers have _WON_ their court battles? > > There were at least 2 recently IIRC. > > > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:51:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > You did... ;) > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support/5068 > > > > > > The is a big difference in knowing it can happen, and knowing it is happening. > > > The USPS knows it can happen, but doesn't know it is. > > > In freenet you know not only that it can happen, but you know it is happening > > > (maybe not with 100% certainty, but enough to convince a jury I would suspect). > > > The reason you are held more accountable for your actions is because you are an > > > individual where as the USPS is a huge organization. It's the USPS job to > > > deliver packages, where you are under no obligation to run freenet. > > > > > > quote - "You are trying to turn a collection of acts, a small number of which > > > may assist someone to do something illegal, into a single act of criminal > > > facilitation. This is clearly not the intent of the law and I would be amazed > > > if you can provide any case law to the contrary." > > > Actually you combined the acts. The design of freenet is so successful that it > > > makes it imposable to tell the bad from the good. The intent of the law is to > > > stop someone from helping another person commit a crime by simply not taking > > > part in the crime themselves. But in fact in freenet its actually much worse > > > because you are actively taking part in it. > > > Its like this, a hard drive by itself is perfectly legal. But the moment a KP > > > picture is put on that hard drive the whole thing is contraband since you have > > > combined the two in such a way as to make them one. No matter what else is on > > > the hard drive, even if its the cure for cancer. > > > You can't hide behind the fact that most of your deeds are good deeds, if you > > > can't stop the bad deeds you can't do any of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 10:35 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode > > > Coral > > > Importance: Low > > > > > > > > > On 6 Aug 2004, at 14:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I gave you a link to the New York state penal code definition of > > > > criminal facilitation. Which spells out very clearly that one only > > > > needs a probable knowledge that his or her actions are allowing for a > > > > crime to occur. > > > > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a25.html > > > > > > Perhaps I have overlooked one of your emails, but I don't think you > > > responded to my point that if the law was interpreted in the manner you > > > are suggesting, then postal workers (who must know that there is a > > > possibility that the mail they carry contains illegal material) would > > > be liable. > > > > > > Clearly this would be ridiculous, and so I suspect your interpretation > > > must be incorrect. > > > > > > Looking more closely at the case law you cite it isn't hard to see > > > fundamental differences which would mean it doesn't apply here (which > > > is good news for postal workers and Freenet node operators alike): > > > > > > Florez knew the person that she was helping, and had specific reason to > > > believe that he would use the account illegally, but she did it anyway. > > > In contrast, neither a Freenet node operator nor a postman will > > > typically have specific knowledge of the person to whom they are > > > delivering a piece of information, and it is reasonable to assume that > > > is most cases that person is doing nothing illegal. > > > > > > In other words, for any given piece of mail or data, the Freenet node > > > operator most certainly does not have probable knowledge that they are > > > taking part in an illegal activity. You are trying to turn a > > > collection of acts, a small number of which may assist someone to do > > > something illegal, into a single act of criminal facilitation. This is > > > clearly not the intent of the law and I would be amazed if you can > > > provide any case law to the contrary. > > > > > > Ian. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > chat mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > > > _______________________________________________ > > > chat mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > > > > -- > > Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > > -- > Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
