I wasn't aware of any cases where they hadn't had victory....
As for the INDUCE act (from what I've read) it applies to the creation of products 
used for illegal activities.  It would make it against the law to create a product 
that's primary use is also against the law.  In other words, it would outlaw 
<i>your</i> willful blindness about what freenet is really used for.  It wouldn't just 
criminalize freenet, but it would criminalize you even making it.
I'm very much against this law by the way.

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)
Importance: Low

On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 10:22:41AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As for the uploader
> Willful blindness can not protect you if it can be shown that you had a reasonable 
> suspicion to believe they you are committing a crime.  In fact in some cases a 
> deliberate attempt to not obtain knowledge is proof of that knowledge.

That is unclear. Otherwise the recent P2P cases where the RIAA has not
achieved victory would not have happened. This is precisely why they
need INDUCE to pass (which probably WOULD criminalize Freenet).
> As for the downloader
> While true, the mere act of downloading contraband will probably not land you in 
> jail by itself.  It is however most likely sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant 
> and if you really are downloading kiddy porn you will end up in jail.
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
Support mailing list
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

Reply via email to