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.
I would argue the opposite. I think that our best defense is to try as hard as possible to make a blocking mechanism impossible. The presence of a blocking mechanism is what triggers the legal obligation to use it. Compare Cubby v. Compuserve with Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy -- Compuserve gets off because they exercise no control over content. However, Prodigy, by attempting to filter some content, was made liable for what it let through. Similarly, Napster's ability to ban users went against it, in EFF's opinion: "Napster's failure to police its system and the court's finding that it financially benefited from infringement led to its imposition of vicarious liability. Under the ruling, a file-sharing technology provider may be vicariously liable when it fails to affirmatively use its ability to patrol its system and prevent access to potentially infringing files listed in its search index (if it has one). A file-sharing technology provider such as Freenet that is incapable of blocking access to users or disabling files because of its architectural design, seems to be at a legal advantage to systems such as Napster under the ruling." http://www.eff.org/Intellectual_property/P2P/Napster/20010226_rgross_nap_essay.html theo _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://www.uprizer.com/mailman/listinfo/devl
