The idea is precisely to make it impossible for them to bring it to court, the same way it’s impossible to bring a BTC miner to court… their only alternative would be to attempt an nns proposal and hope the community sides with them.
I dont think its that easy for 2 reasons:
When a miner processes a transaction he only knows address x wants to send some btc to address y, once its confirmed he can’t revert it, so even if somehow law enforcement finds out that transaction was linked to illegal activities the miner can’t possibly revert the state of the whole blockchain, on the other hand nodes have 2 choices: remove the content somehow or be shut down.
Even if in the future miners are taken in court they would have methods to prevent that such as hiding behind a VPN or TOR, the fact you can run a miner at your home also helps, depending on the country DMCA claims to private IPs are useless, e.g you can seed torrent easily using your home connection, try doing the same on a dedicated server hosted in a 1st world country and you’ll get shut down in a couple weeks. IC nodes are hosted in the most regulated infrastructure there is for this kind of stuff and while it is an advantage cause it grants fast and reliable connections and consistent uptime it also mean they can be kicked from the data center anytime they are seen as a liability.
In the past days there have been discussions to add canisters reshuffling and other safety measures to ensure nodes aren’t liable for the content they host, but those are long term goals and it also seems they could cause governments to ban IC from what I’ve read.
The current situation is less than ideal and I think I already have an idea of what the foundation will have to do: comply with DMCA to preserve the IC’s future.
The IC is not mature and adopted enough to be a full web 3.0 infrastructure that only complies with the community’s decisions, just like Satoshi was worried about BTC being used on Silk Road, Dfinity is worried about CP and DMCAs cause they could ruin the IC’s reputation and possibly result in bans in some countries, which would kill adoption and the dream of a blockchain singularity.
Its a shame cause I envisioned web 3.0 to be better in all aspects than web 2.0, but right now I have a feeling it will only be different, yes there will be some additions like SocialFi, added security and some controversial sites like “Parler” will be able to exist, but at the same time we might lose illegal streaming sites, some of you might be okay with this, but for me it is a huge loss, illegal streaming has tangibly improved the way we consume media, its only thanks to Torrent and similar services if today we have Netflix, Spotify, etc… for a small monthly fee, if web 3.0 means the entertainement industry will be able to reinstate their anti consumer monopoly then I’m not sure I want it as much as I did.
I’m okay with the IC being banned out of fear initially though, the point of revolutionary technology is that banning it or going against it ends up being inefficient and counter-productive, because it’s the inevitable next step, and it must challenge obsolete, inefficient systems. I’m kind of demoralized at how detached many of the people involved in the project seem to be from this value, and the spirit of crypto in general tbh. The tech is still amazing and the devs definitely deserve the recognition for it. But I agree, it seems it could end up being a lot different than I thought.
I don’t think people are reacting because they are detached. I think it is an appreciation of the perilous position a node operator is left in with zero legal cover. The technology is evolving. It is just not there yet, but the DMCA litigation, notifications and legal teams are. Unfortunate, but it is what it is.
Dude I’m talking about “internationally” accepted illegal activity…IP theft, terrorism, and child exploitation…and possibly malicious canisters that seek to harm the IC…
The point here is that the community need to draw that line and implement a solution to deal with it.
I think what were talking about here is handling certain pre-court requests, so that we can take care of some obvious issues internally (self-govern) before they are forced to bring more un-nessasary heat and clog up the OG court system. I understand that would bring some risk, but that’s what a responsible system should do IMO, and everything should be documented so the process could be perfected. We’re just spitballing the best actual way that might actually work, but yeah it’s not easy, and there’s no way everyone will be happy. If there was an actual court order, I’m not sure what a vote would be about. It needs to come down, or the nodes will go down.
It would be great to have some clear direction on this from top top, so that I can decide if I actually want to dev a larger project on this platform. Once I deploy the app, my reputation is on the line as well, even if it’s another canisters fault. It’s fine for experimental projects with no users but if you were actually going to go for it, it feels like you could get caught in a trap rn to me anyways. Just like the node operators are feeling currently.
In the DMCA thread, I posted a process model to ensure the node operators maintain their reward in the event of a takedown order and elect to takedown the node - without a canister removal. If the takedown notice goes to the node operator, does anyone know what legal basis would be for the NNS to take action to remove content if they are not a party to the request. Good hygene? How does liability unfold? What is the Foundations exposure in all of this? Is the foundation going to advance a legal opinion and share with the community? A few questions.
(this post is required to have 20 characters, quotes don’t count)
I don’t think we would be privy to the Business Risk Assessment of a Node Operator. It would likely contain solicitor-client privileged information or possibly an assessment of losing a prime candidate in their own facility who is unhappy with the stance. While, this may or may not be a valid reason to take down a node - an operator could decide for their own reasons to abandon the node and its reward and keep their other client happy.
In the compensation proposal the node would have to substantiate the rationale for the action with sufficient detail for the NNS to agree to compensate… Regarding the cansister owner notification. a notice could be posted, but in many cases one does not know to whom a canister belongs. That is why in the NNS stream there is the “Request for Self-Removal”. The NNS stream is less time critical in situations where the node operator has taken the node down but has not deleted the state.
Is it bad to just hide which canisters a node hosts?
It costs nothing for Nintendo to email a DMCA takedown notice to a node provider. They could just email one after another, scare them all, and take down a bunch of nodes.
Seems like it’d be safer to make it so Nintendo doesn’t even know who to email.
The thing about music is that it was supported by patrons and performance residencies until the advent of mass-produced recordings. During this period people copied sheet music but it wasn’t considered illegal.
Then record companies productised music recordings for 50 years and copying music became “theft”.
Then the internet came along. All the money went out of recordings and we are back to patrons and performance again. Bandcamp being a patron-type site like Patreon. Payment for digital content of any kind is always voluntary. There is no point in supporting digital copyright. I feel like this was established 20 years ago.
I bought maybe 30 albums and pirated and distributed hundreds before Spotify came along - as a below-median income worker, paying for music was impossible. Same for software and movies. I’ve put thousands of hours into hundreds of free podcasts with pirated software. People pirate because they can’t pay rather than because they “just don’t want to”.
Copyright is designed to support a sales-based business model but digital media has already moved on. SaaS, support, consulting, and other downstream revenue. Music moved on with Spotify. TV and movies with Netflix.
People will pirate everything on the IC. They’ll use it as a storage layer and have a proxy with an index of content serve users. But it won’t be popular because the current web works so well for that already. Piracy itself is an institution and necessary means of democratising culture and technology.
Further to this point. between 1999 & 2003 my wage was between $4.65 and $5.50 NZ an hour ($2.25 - $2.75 US). $30 for a CD was a weeks wage for a youth worker. Photoshop was $1200. That’s a year of saving, never spending any money ever and it means foregoing a car. Then you become an adult with rent, bills. That’s why the digital piracy debate didn’t have legs. Everyone is too poor. That was part of the reason the pirate parties became a thing globally.
This so much, without piracy the IC can’t and won’t be the future of the internet.
Then these megacorps will just email everyone, even people who have nothing to do with the IP infringement, scare the hell out of dozens of node operators, and start a panic. From my research, most node operators are incorporated in some way. That means liabilities and insurance. Nobody likes getting letters signed by a dozen lawyers, especially when that letter requires you to contact your own attorney(s) and pay out a few thousand dollars for their opinion on an esoteric and emerging legal issue.
There is a proper party in this case, and that party voluntarily complied with the demand letter, so the issue resolved itself. It needs to be easier for the proper party to get actual notice of any legal proceeding, not more difficult for the claimant to reach that party. As megacorps have shown, they are ready, willing, and able to attack the whole. Would it stand up in court? I don’t know and I don’t want to find out. As a wizened law professor once chided me, “Don’t be a test case.”
A few thousand darker steps down this road we find issues of child abuse and pronography - government agencies with subpoenas coming in to resolve criminal issues, not civil ones. Where do we want those subpoenas to go? I want them to go to those responsible, not the collective.
Decentralization is about efficiency; it is not efficient to have the NNS voting on civil litigation matters. Legal matters are like Pringles™: you cannot have just one.
MisterSignal has the right idea here: they need to have a judgement before they come to the NNS for enforcement.
Even in that, responding to pretrial motions as the improper party admits some level of liability, which I do not believe the Dfinity Organization had in this matter. Allowing yourself to be dragged into a legal dispute is a huge mistake, especially when you have nothing to gain and everything to lose. I think it was a mistake to ever raise the vote, instead of telling Nintendo to go do their own dirty work. That was not an NNS issue, nor should it ever be seen as one. Is it a good idea to have a system in place for dealing with these issues moving forward? Yes. And that system should be getting the proper parties together, and then stepping back to do its job, which is governance, not assuming liability for user actions.
I am not mad that my Mario64 “Decentralized any%” speedrun WR is now illegitimate; I am heartbroken. This was my one shot to make it on the SR.com leader boards ;-;
I’ll dive into DMCA laws and get a more informed opinion this week, but that WR is gone forever.
I’m sorry to hear that Bingo. That would have been pretty legit
Check out what IPFS is doing with DMCA’s: Legal | IPFS
They also have a code of conduct: community/code-of-conduct.md at master · ipfs/community · GitHub
i totally agree with this suggestion we can create error zones where all dmca related clutters will be frozen restrict access for a period of time it will be reopened when there is a correct response between the two parties.
obviously dmca is almost similar to nft vulnerability and we can wait when all entities are nft we can be more clear in future copyright protection
I thought folks should know @alexa.smith posted a relevant thread here: Nintendo Incident: Feedback Summary and Open Questions