71–80 of 151 posts
Be warned that IPFS is not anonymous, and the IP addresses of the nodes serving the content are quite easily obtainable. And since the FBI already got involved and arrested people, this is quite the risky endeavor.
If you run an IPFS server, you don't know what's on it, do you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copying is privacy and piracy is still an issue for the host.
Piracy is a misnomer used to make people feel like unauthorized copying is "stealing", since "piracy" traditionally refers to people who perform armed robbery on high seas. Copying can be unauthorized, but when you say it as it is, "unauthorized copying" sounds a lot less terrible then "stealing" and "piracy", and is more precise in meaning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IPFS wont run via Tor, DHT is UDP based and Tor doesn't support UDP by design. Did my research last weekend, anybody more knowledgable, please correct me if I am wrong. Possibly it should run fine via I2P or Yggdrasil.
Googled ipfs and tor just to make sure it's not hard to find. The first result was a guide on how to do it.
(edit:typo)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely false equivalence. Copying answers isn't bad because you are infringing on someones "right" to have control over their answers. It is bad because you are commiting academic fraud and seeking a qualification you have not earned. You are claiming anothers achievement as your own. Me reading a pirated book does not mean I claim to be the author.
I guess the elephant in the room is that you're not paying the authors for what they created; in this sense it's like "stealing". Someone spends time and resources making something and you use that something without compensating that someone. I agree it's not exactly like stealing (that's why we invented a different word for it), bt ut's still something that is unfair to the book author(s).
If you go to a supermarket and steal a TV that’s stealing. You taking a picture of it isn’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you run an IPFS server, you don't know what's on it, do you?
So, if the FBI comes to arrest me can I just get away with that? "Sorry guys, I do have an IPFS server but I had no idea it was distributing illegal content to the world. Can I go now?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you run an IPFS server, you don't know what's on it, do you?
So, if the FBI comes to arrest me can I just get away with that? "Sorry guys, I do have an IPFS server but I had no idea it was distributing illegal content to the world. Can I go now?"
In Freenet you contribute to a global pool of storage, and end up storing and transmitting whatever the network happens to need. Freenet is intentionally obscure about it. The archive is encrypted, there are no logs, there's no way to list what your node contains, and storage is probabilistic making it hard to determine if something is there because you asked for it, or it passed through your node.
Tor also tries something similar, and has premade explanations to give to authorities if they ask about your exit node.
But those are specifically built to try to work with that case. Stuff happens behind your back that you have zero involvement in besides providing a piece of infrastructure for the network.
In IPFS on the other hand you make a personal, intentional choice to mirror or upload something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Seems like this will get many people a love letter from their ISP. Many countries just don't care. A few EU ones and USA might, but once you go into slightly poorer territories, noone cares about foreign copyright. So, treat it like you would treat seeding a pirate bittorrent.
In Canada the ISPs send email threats but do absolutely nothing. I get them all the time.
That’s why these emails always try and entice you to click a link and settle the crime for a few hundred dollars. They can’t do anything else as they don’t even know who you are but a few chumps will click and pay so it’s free money in a way.
Anyway, great piece of law and I’m glad lobbies didn’t get their way with that in Canada.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess the elephant in the room is that you're not paying the authors for what they created; in this sense it's like "stealing". Someone spends time and resources making something and you use that something without compensating that someone. I agree it's not exactly like stealing (that's why we invented a different word for it), bt ut's still something that is unfair to the book author(s).
There is an artist's gallery in my town. The artist sells lots of pieces (or tries to; no idea how successful). If I go and look at each piece, really take it in and absorb it fully and internalize it, but buy nothing, have I done the thing that's not exactly like stealing? If I download a PDF and read it and then delete it as soon as I am done, have I done the thing that is not exactly like stealing? If I go to a li…
For example, that person whose works are in the gallery has built their business on a balance of exposure - letting anyone who walks in look at things - and the fact that people who buy art are willing to pay a fair amount to own a physical object for display. Looking without buying is expressly part of their business model.
Book publishing is different, with the author assuming they’ll get payments from readers - much smaller than that artists but many of them. Since I don’t have any ownership rights over their work, I don’t attempt to change the terms.
Still no meaningful promises around the safety or effectiveness of this. Seems like this will get many people a love letter from their ISP. Not worth the hassle with no idea of if this will work in even the medium term.
There is no chance that I would risk this. I would gladly donate several Terabytes of seeding if this possible in a secure and _anonymous_ network.