On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:42:49AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> 
> On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:38, Toad wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:02:33AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >>On 4 Aug 2004, at 20:03, Toad wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 08:01:22PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >>>>While I am no fan of the Induce Act, I should point out that from my
> >>>>reading of the Induce Act, Freenet would *probably* be safe as none 
> >>>>of
> >>>>its features are expressly intended to allow people to infringe
> >>>>copyright law (this is merely a side-effect of Freenet's actual 
> >>>>goal).
> >>>
> >>>Umm, and clasical P2P systems don't have noninfringing uses?
> >>
> >>No, but may of them have features which their creators have 
> >>(foolishly)
> >>admitted are directly intended to thwart the efforts of copyright
> >>holders to enforce copyright law.
> >
> >LOL. Whereas we don't? ;)
> 
> Which feature of Freenet is *intended* to toward the efforts of 
> copyright holders to enforce copyright law?

All of Freenet is intended to thwart those who want to eliminate content
on Freenet, and eliminate the contributors and requestors of that
content.
> 
> Ian.
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.

Attachment: signature.asc
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]

Reply via email to