> I completely agree with that. I regret that *IF* this MediaEnforcer
> thing works (and that's a big if), and *IF* they do a simple request
> for data and then bust you if they find the data, *THEN* practically
> everyone with a Freenet node they can reach is a target.
Everyone with a Freenet node, in the US, with a flimsy contract with their
ISP (ie. not universities, not companies like Intel and Sun who openly
support P2P), WHO THEY HAPPEN TO STUMBLE ACROSS. If there are enough
Freenet nodes, then it will be the "hit by the bus" idea, where you
*might* be hit by a bus if you go outside, but that doesn't prevent people
from going outside.
> I have zero faith in my ISP not to cancel my account if they get a
> letter from a lawyer, no matter how flimsy. They have a stated policy
> about distributing copyrighted materials, and I really don't think
> they'd give me the benefit of the doubt based on somewhat subtle
> technical issues surrounding Freenet nodes.
Don't they have to ask you to remove the content before cutting you
off? Also, according to the text of the DMCA section 512 (f):
----------------------------------
``(f ) Misrepresentations.--Any person who knowingly materially
misrepresents under this section--
``(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
``(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by
mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees,
incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright
owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by
such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying
upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the
material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the
removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
----------------------------------
If Media Enforcer finds themselves on the wrong side of an argument over
whether it can be considered a misrepresentation to tell an ISP that a
Freenet node is infringing, THEY WILL BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES! This makes
things VERY interesting from the point-of-view of their proposed shotgun
approach to enforcement.
Also, paragraph (d) of the same section is interesting from the point of
view of liability of a Freenet node through which someone requests
infringing content:
> API> I am very frightened for Freenet because of this technology.
> IC> Don't be frightened for Freenet, be frightened for Freedom
> IC> (oh, and don't start now, you should have started when the
> IC> DMCA was passed).
>
> I think we're all frightened for Freedom. That's why we're here in the
> first place. If we thought lawsuits or other network solutions would
> work, we wouldn't have come to Freenet.
I would strongly suggest reading up on the DMCA - find the text itself at:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/occ/dmca/pl105_304.htm
There are actually some things in there which work in Freenet's favour.
> So, until I feel comfortable running a node without fearing for my
> network connection, I probably won't be updating PDJ. Hopefully I can
> make myself comfy in a few days, though.
I here-by grant you permission to use my node: tcp/www.uprizer.com:19114
Ian.
PGP signature
