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.
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]