Please read the thread more carefully. We’re talking about legal implications. Although seemingly close, the topic is not about what you say. From the original post:
We’re not discussing about storing the *hit unless it’s in context with PtP. The focus is on payment – paying for apps (PtD) that support illegal activity knowingly and willingly via the SAFE protocol as binding contract.
I don’t think you can shield yourself from terrorist and pedophile lawsuits by incorporating, because it’s not a case of some employee accidentally hosting something, but everyone (farmers) doing it. I don’t think there will be such lawsuits for accidental hosting, but there is a small possibility.
At first there will be the publishers ( illegal porn, terrorists) that will get caught, but as fewer and fewer get caught, busybodies will try to put the farmers out of business, so the risk is smaller, indirect and not immediate.
My thinking process was that investors/miners who invested/mined in maidsafe under the suggestion of a cryptocurrency or whatever investment firm would be equivalent to stockholders, in that they had no idea what safenet is, they were just investing in what their financial advisers told them to invest in.
Though honestly, given safenet’s potential usecase to software, data center, and fintech companies of various sizes, it wouldn’t surprise me to see any legal beef the thugs in robes decide to have with safenet get lobbied away.
The network doesn’t know what the content of an upload is. Therefore the individual users don’t know what the content is.
Feds: You use SAFE which funds illegal activities!
User: I use SAFE which funds people that uploads content. The network nor I have any idea what that content is.
Feds: We found terrorist information on the SAFE network!
User: You can also find Bibles and copies of 1984 on the SAFE network as well as loads of scientific research to cure cancer. More to the point no one knows who uploaded what. If you did you wouldn’t be talking to me, you’d be arresting the people who uploaded the “illegal” content. Can you prove I uploaded anything illegal?
I think you’re missing my point. Whether bittorent has fair use laws or payment functionality is IRRELIVENT. Downloading movies and music is ILLEGAL yet people do it anyway. They do it because the government can’t do a thing about it. The gov’t can arrest one person here or one person there but it can’t arrest everyone. The government has tried, and continues to try, to use fear propaganda and tactics but it simply doesn’t work. People still download their music and movies and other assorted content. Projects like popcorntime, scihub and the piratebay STILL thrive regardless of the legality or illegality of piracy. Making something illegal doesn’t stop people from doing it. Legality != morality or social acceptance. Legality is simply a measure of power and force. Think about the drug war. Something like 95% of America thought canabis should be legal but the drug war still raged until just recently states started to legalize it. And STILL the drug war continues with other drugs. You’d think maybe they’d get a clue that prohibition doesn’t work? Point is making something illegal doesn’t mean people won’t do it. That’s kind of one of the lessons of prohibition.
That applies to any product bought, I buy a pack of gum, am I in a binding contract with the company that sells it?
I think you need to learn contract law, and what constitutes a binding contract and the limitations of any such contract.
Even if you can twist and manipulate it that a opensource piece of code can be considered to hold any sort of contract with you, the limitations of that would be only to supply storage. There cannot be any bindings to what the network supports.
BUT you have yet to show precedent in contract law that there is even a contract.
If and only if, you can show a contract then you have to show precedent in contract law that the bindings extend to what the network pays for.
And if and only if you can show that then you have to show precedent that opensource software can be held responsible for criminals who use it and or received any benefit from it (payment is only one form of benefit, the law recognises much more).
Until you can somehow show ALL and in mean ALL linkages actually exist in contract law precedent, your argument is FUD, which I suspect you created to make everyone scared of PtP & PtD and as a consequence anyone who is paid by the network, including farmers, since farmers store and serve up the material. Without whom the network does not exists. And if people who put are in a unlimited bonded contract then so are farmers MORE so.
###This is not a debate where you can use just words & ignore facts, you are talking of the most serious problem that faces SAFE. Your claim affects farmers too because by your logic farmers are bound too and each and every farmer is collectively profiting from crime and thus lible, by your logic.
###You need to back your claims with precedent or its mere FUD that is contrary to common sense and observed actions.
Not by your logic, farmers would receive money for hosting such things.
The reason why the discussions dismissed teh problem was because your OP is FUD and does not exist. BUT if it does as you claim then farmers are libel more so than people who PUT
For me what is more concerning is how this is going to be used as an attack on Safe.
I mentioned it before but I think it’s worth repeating that PTP will be a PR nightmare. Once a story breaks out about how a rapist got paid by the network for posting his video on Safe, a lot a people will not want to associate themselves with Safe. Some will think it’s illegal, some will think it’s amoral, either way Safe will become much harder to sell, whether or not they are right.
Will this happen? Well it already did. This thread is a perfect example of that, people raising concern. When it goes live and we get some real stories it’s going to be like that, but worst.
Now the question is: should we care?
I think so. Because as @happybeing points out, the benefit of PTP needs to overcome its drawbacks. And in this case the drawback as the potential to make Safe never reach mass adoption, something PTP was designed to help.
Is this the ultimate argument against PTP? Probably not. If you strongly believe in the vision of PTP I don’t think it’s going to change your mind. But again as @happybeing said, we need to explore all aspect of the feature, not just the one we like.
There are the legal issues (which I’m not going to argue) and then there are the moral issues.
Let’s consider child porn as an example.
Moral consideration for farmers IMO:
A farmer may host (and hence is paid to host) a fragment of an encrypted bit of child porn. Is this a moral issue? I think not as the porn itself (even if you hosted the full file) is ‘history’ and history good or bad isn’t in and of itself causing harm in any direct fashion. Farmers are not producers in any case. Hence morally speaking hosting child porn seems morally ambiguous.
Moral consideration for PtP and PtD:
A producer of child porn or a developer of an app that displays/serves child porn is being paid by the network for their efforts in creating such content. This would be considered by many potential users as a contract between those that support the network (and I use the term ‘support’ loosely to imply all kinds of support - including moral support) and the producers of the networks content - in this example child porn.
Conclusion:
So as regards the moral consideration for a user of the network I can only speak for myself, but if, I as a potential user, know that the network will pay producers of child porn … and not merely act as a host for some bits of it; then I and I suspect many users may think thrice about using such a network.
This, as a moral argument is not FUD – this is honest truth about what PtP and PtD represents to many people on a moral level - we are being asked to support things that we do not like. And for many of us, this is fundamentally wrong and disrespectful of our feelings/morals. Disrespect of the individual and individual opinion.
The more I understand about the consequences of PtP and PtD … the more I think I will not be able to support the network if it goes live with these features and that makes me quite sad.
[ New topic for discussion of moral issues only of PtP and PtD here: Moral issues as regards PtP and PtD ]
Now that is a real concern. How much a story it will make is the question, and how will the public react.
I would think that the extreme groups that use anything, this will not make any difference to knowing that the material exists on SAFE. The degree of difference will be lost because of their absolute put down of the network. But fortunately not many listen to them anyhow and even less agree with them.
How much will end up a sound byte, lets get worked about this issue today and forget tomorrow? This is the majority of the news/current affairs people. Facebook has its fluttery of outrage at this or that then dies off fairly quickly.
Now I look at (someone else mentioned it) say Tor and other messaging services that are offered. The governments & media are not so quick to report on them. WHY? Because it draws attention to these services that they cannot control, or get info from. To report on them is to alert to the thinking public that the services exist and are beyond government snooping.
So it is a real argument against SAFE/PtP, but how more an argument is it? The story that it was stored on SAFE will generate perhaps 95% as much a story as that. If the rapist was after money for the video, then he just asks for payment and it becomes the same story to the papers. Really the big story is that the rapist atored his video “anywhere” on the internet.
Imagine the newspaper trying to explain the difference between the internet and SAFE. Most of the ones who swallow these stories hook line and sinker are unlikely to know the difference between Tor and the internet. Or even know that the dark web is not just the web with the lights dimmed.
I agree with your overall assessment that morally it creates an important issue.
Maybe one that needs to be explored to how much and what effect it will have. But since this is a topic on holding the users and authors of SAFE libel under contract law then this is not the topic to do it in. Maybe you could start one OR continue in one of the PtP/PtD topics.
I think there is a big distinction. When individuals pays for it, you can blame them. When the network pays for it, the network is the only thing to put the blame on and by association, everyone who participate.
It also makes for much more sensational headlines.
Maybe I will ask a question that might illustrate some of what I was driving at. What was the last headline wording about the dark web you read, or about Tor? These stories come and go, people get outraged then go back to what they were doing.
Even with political parties a member gets found out to be a sex offender. The sheeple still vote for the party a couple of months later. One can take two views on that, the sheeple are really smarter than that and realise that its a separate case to the whole, or that the sheeple just want to be outraged and just go back to life regardless. But with Tor/anonymous messaging/etc the media/government keep quiet for teh most part because they don’t want the public to see through the bad bits and see a gold mine in anonymity and sticking it to the man.
I understand, but I’m not talking about whether or not you and me will keep on using Safe. I’m talking about whether or not Joe Public will want to join the network so it can reach mass adoption. This is the difference with Tor. Tor isn’t trying to achieve mass adoption, Safe is. It’s the new Internet right? Well the new internet needs to put its best foot forward and my concern is that PTP, while trying to do that, might do the exact opposite.
Thats why I related the rest to the general public (sheeple) and a topic more dear to their hearts - who they vote for in elections. The general public will be safe SAFE what? Pay-the-producer what? OH they caught another rapist or sicko selling their videos on the web.
To explain SAFE is to educate a little more about secure/anonymous systems they could use to stop government spying, which could actually backfire on the story.
I like your example. Forgive the derogatory remarks to the User as I am only pretending to act like the Fed:
Fed: Of course you do. Just go to the website “address” of the ISIS.safe or getYourKiddiePornFixHere.safe. See that propaganda? See the videos of heads being chopped off? That’s what you and your friends are supporting. You are a threat to national security. You’ll get worse than Ross Ulbricht son.
Fed: Bibles? Cure for cancer? Who you’re trying to kid with that kind of bull*hit? We all know that’s a front for paying ISIS and for the disgusting habits of pedophiles. All we have to know is that ISIS uploaded the content, that they are brainwashing new recruits with their brand new social media app, and that you and your SAFE buddies are funding them. Pretty illegal wouldn’t you say? This ain’t petty *hit like downloading Lion King son.
No it doesn’t. Buying a pack of gum from the store only relates to general laws of commerce – I pay for a product and expect the product in return for the money. If converted to PtD, the analogy is this. I’m paying the gum company for every piece of gum it sells no matter what the quality – if it’s good, if it’s stale, or if it’s poison.
Read the legal definition of a contract that I pasted on the OP. Applying these criteria is basic contract law. Open up any business law book. Take any business law course. I have. And you’ll see that contract law is one of the first things that is taught because the most common defense is “I never agreed to that. That doesn’t apply to me.” arguments. If you want, we can run through each element to test if the SAFE protocol with PtD can be considered a contract.
Here are examples where the definition of contract is applied.
The precedent is the process of determining what is a contract. The same thing will happen with the SAFE protocol. What you are asking for is an exact case and crying FUD if there isn’t an exact one.
It is scary bro! Because it’s real. Payment to terrorists and pedophiles is real.
You still have not made your case.
And as I said, if your OP was not FUD, then this is the most serious problem SAFE faces and we may as well pack up and go home.
Because according to you, without evidence, everyone will be sued who pay for uploads and the farmers because they also receive payments for serving up the illegal material (bound by their “contract” to be paid for aiding and abetting the criminals)
Nope, they would only receive money for providing storage. They do not knowingly and willingly store illegal content because it is encrypted. Illegal apps and content on the network are usuable, viewable and known. That is the purpose of apps and content. So participants on the network are knowingly and willingly funding these illegal activities.
Sorry, you did not read earlier. They also are, by your logic, under contract to the network to support it and provide the storage to make it all work, so are equally libel or more so, than the uploader who only paid for storage which the network destroyed the coin so their coin is NOT given to the criminals, but new coin created by the network. So uploader and farmer are both responsible for keeping the network alive.
If you refuse to understand, or not read what people say then sorry, why should we try to help discuss this issue.
And again I say MAKE YOUR CASE, this is the MOST IMPORTANT issue facing SAFE. Your logic means the uploades, the farmers, and the developers are all libel and risk years of jail.
So make your case, so real reasons (not some googled definition. Show the extent, by precedent of LAW how people are bound by your so called contracts. How these bindings make them libel for the activities of the criminals.
Until you do then responding that they are and somehow farmers are protected is really fear, uncertainty and you even mention destruction in this topic and others that FtD and PtP will bring.
Nope, read the thread titled “What if I don’t want to store child porn?”. I agree with why farmers are not to worry about storing child porn. And the key is knowingly and willingly storing the content. The contents are encrypted. Apps and content are not.