There is a book I would suggest anyone interested in the legal ramifications: Code Wars: 10 years of P2P Software Litigation by Dr. Rebecca Giblin.
1 Like
Though John doesn’t have the keys, there is a single entity which created the network: Maidsafe. What would regulators stop in prosecuting Maidsafe? Look for example at facebook and yheir libracoin.
It wouldn’t have to stop the network but it would stop progress on the network (as I understood the code is property of maidsafe and not fully open source, only under specific license where you do not use it for commercial purposes).
Could it maybe even be possible that, if Maidsafe is deemed responsible, it could become illegal to fork/work on the code created by Maidsafe?
1 Like
The government can make most anything illegal. There might be a chance of protection under free speech rights, but it would be a battle I would say could go either way. Now many things the government has made illegal people do anyways and are quite prolific like marijuana for instance. So I don’t think things would grind to a halt. Maidsafe has patents and stuff to prevent someone from just cloning their own, but once the network is out in the wild it really only stops if everyone unplugs their farming rigs.
2 Likes
Alright, my turn to try.
Check this out @warz, it’s pretty simple.
Forget all about John, John is no more, sorry John. Also forget about Youtube or any websites for that matter. Apps and dapps, forget about those too.
Now, just think about your browser. On the web, your browser is just a window that’s interpreting some data found at an URL. You point it somewhere, it fetches the data and interpret it. Chrome or Firefox aren’t responsible where users point their browser, only the user is.
At the very core on Safe, apps are just like a kind of browser. Just a window you can point anywhere on the network to look at some data. That’s the right way to do it anyway. Just like Google is not responsible on how their users use their browser. An app creator on Safe is not responsible either. As long as the creator doesn’t also provide the actual data to look at.
7 Likes
Just to nip this is the bud, this is not true. The code is all open source.
4 Likes
Maidsafe will only develop the software and will not be operating it after launch. Locking up the maidsafe team will not impact the live network.
Even shutting down the github repos will not impact the network, as the source will be on the network itself.
6 Likes
Blockchains can store small amounts of immutable data permanently.
SAFENetwork can store small or large amounts of immutable data permanently.
Considering these two facts, with both technologies being open source and distributed, there are more similarities than differences.
6 Likes
You’re just repeating what @neo said. I’ve already replied to this here and here. Unless you can come up with a technical solution to your utopic vision, this is all sunshine and lollipops.
So, can you do it? Give me the technical way to accomplish this vision?
1 Like
It seems to me that the issue is not with what others are saying but the way you interpret it all. What people are saying is pretty much true and the liability is with the owner/uploader of the data. Be it curating & indexing videos, or the videos themselves.
I launch safe.tube, people add links to safe.tube, they control the data, but I control those links. I choose which link gets to be displayed on the page. That means I am legally accountable and must remove links to illegal content.
1 Like
This is correct. No one has opposed this from what i see, well at least the ones you say are repeating me.
But there are at least 2 major other ways youtube can be set up and the author is not liable.
If you disagree then you disagree with observable history, one being the bittorrent program.
Great. Then let’s focus on this problem.
Ok, what are they?
Even if you can come up with a technical solution to run bittorrent on safe, this solution sucks. Nobody watching youtube videos wants to mess around with torrents. This is highly inconvenient.
1 Like
Buy Why? Wouldn’t this just be a self fulling prophecy for you. I’d say lets focus on the other solutions that move all liability to the users. It should be the user themselves that bear all liability for the material they post.
Because from what I gather, your solutions involves p2p alternatives, such as sending link to videos by pm to your friends. I want to have a global, centralized repository where everyone can participate, not just a small list of buddies of yours or me. I want a youtube clone.
Then go back and read because they did not involve any p2p other than the SAFEnetwork being a decentralised network. And they would be able to be classified as a youtube
I am not responding till you go back and reread all the posts by people giving you valid scenarios
I’ve read your solutions multiple time. They don’t make any sense. I’m looking for a concrete solution to the problem, but you only gave vague answers.
Which posts in particular did I not reply to sufficiently ?
I think this is one of the most important, though perhaps not yet urgent, topics we need to keep working. I can see government and big tech coming for the Safe network at some point and there are so many angles of potential attack. We will need solid defenses. Perhaps at some point just prior to going “live” we should engage some legal advisers on this? My fear is that the defense of “can’t control content” while it works for Bitcoin for now, is actually a trap. Regulators could shut off all FIAT/SAFE conversions if they wanted to. I suspect they don’t consider doing this for BTC because all transactions are openly posted on the blockchain so it is more valuable to let people think the transactions are quasi-anonymous right now. With KYC the crackdown in unpaid taxes has already begun. With SAFE I can see just outlawing FIAT/SAFE conversions. Won’t trouble small players (private cash transactions), and the network could still technically function, but that would cripple the SAFE economy. So please keep at this (I know some may be getting frustrated), but I don’t think we can possibly spend too little thought on all the potential risks and angles of attack here.
2 Likes
Alright, take two. John is still dead.
No there is not. Not in the traditional sense of what a website is. If you provide a link to a piece of data, you open yourself up to the responsibility of sharing that link.
Potentially, yes you have. The tech you use doesn’t absolve you of your legal responsibilities. Whatever are your opinions about them.
Alright, self promotion moment, read this up. It doesn’t get too technical, but it gives an example on how to build a system where the data is completely separated from the UI and how an App can function on Safe.
The Safe network is not a replacement for the web. I know it’s marketed that way, but in reality, it’s just a giant shared database with no centralized indexing. So it sucks right? Well for some things it does, but for other things it’s pretty damn ground breaking. But yeah, the web isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, both will be working in parallel for a pretty long time at least.
If you want to use it to centralize something, like a sharing video website, you open a nice can of responsibilities, like you do on the web, you are just more hidden by default, much much much more. But it’s also worst because data are never erased, so you can’t really moderate it, it’s always there hidden in plain sight. In short, don’t do SafeTube as a centralized indexing service. Or do and accept the responsibilities.
You can still do a SafeTube though, but it would be just a fancy UI for users to organize their play list and share them with their communities. Is it inconvenient? It is, but it’s kind of the price you pay to give back people the control over their data. Can’t have it both ways.
so TLDR: If you are looking for centralization, go on the web, it’s remarkably good at it. If you are looking for decentralization, go on Safe, nothing will come close to it.
And this is a controversial topic but, if you mix both together, you got one hell of a piece of tech to play around with.
That’s for my understanding of version 1 though. Folks working on this are pretty clever. Who knows what the future holds.
6 Likes
That was a great read, you’ve clearly been thinking this through and come up with some amazing ideas. I’m definitively going to look closer at this when I start developing my own site for safe net. But I am still confused as to how the actual sharing between users can occur efficiently. In addition, the mutable data itself does also have an owner right? That is, someone with the rights to manage permissions and changes to the data. Seems like they might still have some liability?
Look, youtube is screwing users over at the moment, they are deleting videos like madmen. It’s quickly turning into a platform where only political correct content is allowed. Every year they come up with stricter terms of conditions. It’s like burning the library of Alexandria. Millions of videos will be lost forever. The copyright laws enforcement is now getting very strict, so imo this is a pretty urgent and big problem. We need to replace youtube.com with safe.tube.
I’m not looking for “centralization”, I am looking for a central place for content, a repository of videos neatly organized such as youtube, but in a decentralized form (so that nobody is to blame).
Your p2p solution is certainly interesting, but unless someone can come up with a decentralized alternative that functions as youtube we’re going to need people to step up and take the role as owners of safe.tube, Until decentralization is possible without sacrificing convenience and availability we’re bringing back John.
3 Likes