Here's an answer from a real lawyer: http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/p2p_copyright_wp.php
"2. Your two options: total control or total anarchy. In the wake of recent decisions on indirect copyright liability, it appears that copyright law has foisted a binary choice on P2P developers: either build a system that allows for thorough monitoring and control over end-user activities, or build one that makes such monitoring and control impossible.... The law of contributory infringement therefore presents a developer with a binary choice: you can either include mechanisms that enable monitoring and control of user activities (and use them to stop allegedly infringing activity when you receive complaints), or choose a truly decentralized architecture that will convince a judge that such monitoring and control is impossible without extensive redesign. (Copyright owners have begun arguing that you must at redesign future versions of your software to prevent infringement. This remarkable argument has not yet been accepted by any court.)" Granted this doesn't apply strictly to your suggestion, but it is pretty close. On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 04:31:11PM -0400, Edward J. Huff wrote: > On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm not sure where your 'village' is but here it works much > > the same way actually. But the problem is that there is no > > machine that can just tell us what your intent was. So what > > your intent was has to be inferred from your actions and your > > knowledge. The fact is that everyone knows there lots of > > illegal stuff floating around freenet, and one can simply > > not avoid responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring > > what is obvious. > > > So even though you didn't want to transmit kiddy porn you > > made the choice to run a freenet node fully aware that it > > could and would result in KP being distributed. That right > > there is enough to establish intent. > > Ok, suppose most users of freenet decide to unite against > kiddie porn by using TFE, YOYO, etc., to learn as many KP keys as > possible, and delete these keys from their datastores and patch freenet > so it won't carry them. Now even so, some KP will be distributed, but > only so long as the keys are unknown to the general population of > freenet users. Now what do you say about intent? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Support mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]