At 08:56 PM 2/27/2001, you wrote: >Oskar Sandberg wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:04:41PM -0800, hal at finney.org wrote: > > <> > > > The writing's on the wall here, folks. Ultimately I am afraid that > > > Freenet will not be legally runnable in the U.S. without a blocking > > > mechanism. I wouldn't rush to put it in unless or until people start > > > getting legal notices, but eventually the issue will have to be dealt > > > with. Either Freenet accepts that the U.S. market is off limits, or it > > > provides a means to block certain data. Neither is an attractive choice. > > > > Running a Napster client that shares MP3z is very clearly illegal in most > > every country. Yet a lot of people are doing it, and nobody has lifted a > > finger on them...
I am not a lawyer but I feel there is a difference between napster and freenet. Napster's purpose in life is to enable the sharing of music - copy righted material by default. Freenet is an emerging/enabling technology of distributed file sharing. it is www anonymous. Legally I think that Freenet does not fall in the same category because it can be used for a lot of legitimate purposes. Illegitimate use is the responsibility of users and not the creators. There is a lot of illegal stuff on www, no one has argued about shutting down www. I think Freenet falls in the same category. my 2 cents... Zafar _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://www.uprizer.com/mailman/listinfo/devl
