[HN Gopher] Publishers carpet-bomb IPFS gateway operators with D...
___________________________________________________________________
Publishers carpet-bomb IPFS gateway operators with DMCA notices
Author : gslin
Score : 161 points
Date : 2023-06-25 16:56 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (torrentfreak.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (torrentfreak.com)
| lmkg wrote:
| Here's my completely-unsourced conspiracy theory:
|
| Someone is using ChatGTP to look for infringing content. DMCA
| notices are being sent on the basis of AI hallucinations.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| Related, what's "modern best practices" in both software (ie what
| to write) and operator (ie you are running software, and need to
| do something with DMCA)?
|
| I ask in the context of ActivityPub, Mastodon, Lemmy, Kbin, etc.
| I'm writing software for ActivityPub and i want to ensure self-
| hosted instances have the tools to respond and manage to legal ..
| threats _(or w /e)_ like DMCA. Likewise i don't even know what is
| good advice for people to manage these notices. Of course there's
| also all the other undesired things too, CSAM, etc. Hosting user
| content is tough, heh.
|
| As someone invested in getting people to self host more of their
| life in ways like ActivityPub, that also then means more exposure
| to this type of .. stuff. Not sure what the current consensus
| even is, tbh.
| imtringued wrote:
| The solution is to make instances publish their block lists and
| import these block lists to the self hosted instances.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| I don't think that touches on specific content violations
| though, does it? Ie dealing with a notice of a DMCA on
| something from a non-blocked host _(or your own!)_
| schroeding wrote:
| One thing you have to be aware is that there are many hosters
| (like e.g. Hetzner, which is excellent otherwise IMO) who will
| drop you like a hot potatoe (i.e. blackhole your server in the
| best case, terminate your account in the worst) if they recieve
| multiple DMCA notices (or abuse notices in general) for your IP
| / Server / VPS.
|
| It does not always matter if those are actually legit if they
| look credible enough and thus, if someone hates you very much,
| it can be used as a weapon to kill your instance.
|
| This can be somewhat remedied by hiding your hoster via
| something like e.g. Cloudflare, if having a middle men is
| acceptable.
| deadly_syn wrote:
| Isnt the beauty of activity pub that you can tenat an instance
| juat for yourself? That could avoid a lof ot the legal
| headaches. You could also make it invite only through yourself,
| your instance doesnt need to be big if everyone elses is.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| That would be nice but i don't think it's realistic in the
| general space. ActivityPub in what i've researched so far is
| inefficiency for that granularity of P2P. For example I've
| seen complaints with Mastodon where small instances get
| ignored on the federating. Which i believe translates to data
| that comes from those instances taking a long time to get
| populated on the larger instance. Leaving the smaller
| instances feeling like they're speaking into the void - as no
| one replies, because no one can see it.
|
| Instead i think it will shine with many small instances.
| 500-30k maybe? Still similar issues with federating, but less
| so than hundreds of thousands of 1person instances.
|
| I'm focusing on what i'm calling micro instances, 50-1000
| range i suspect. So we'll see.
| cookiengineer wrote:
| How about a counter strategy?
|
| - randomize the url list
|
| - ask for evidence of copyright violation of a specific url
| number
|
| - if human does not answer, claim they acted in bad faith
|
| - give them 14 days to respond
|
| Win/win. Gotta game the system, and increase the
| cost/effectiveness ratio.
| realusername wrote:
| Maybe we should create a fund to sue those illegal DMCA
| requests back
| compilator1 wrote:
| Wondering, where is that red line where publishers cross and
| someone introduce complete resilient and super simple solution to
| this whack-a-mole.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > "The weird thing is, [the system used] doesn't actually verify
| that a given file is available through my server before sending a
| DMCA request. I've looked through the traffic logs, and the vast
| majority of the files listed in these takedown requests have
| never been requested in the history of my gateway. I haven't
| checked all of them, but I've checked a lot," Lang says.
|
| So... DMCA is infamous for its lack of protections against
| misuse, and I'm not a lawyer, but that's gotta actually qualify
| as perjury, surely?
| mindslight wrote:
| It doesn't. With the DMCA being a corrupt law wholly bought and
| paid for by the content cartels, the "perjury" bit only applies
| to someone falsely claiming to be authorized by the imaginary
| property owner.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Interesting; that does appear to be accurate:
|
| https://www.aclu.org/documents/text-digital-millennium-
| copyr...
|
| > "(3)ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION.-
|
| > "(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification
| of claimed infringement must be a written communication
| provided to the designated agent of a service provider that
| includes substantially the following:
|
| [...]
|
| > "(vi) A statement that the information in the notification
| is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the
| complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner
| of an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed.
|
| But that makes it _completely_ trivial to abuse. But like...
| for everyone. What prevents a person from returning the
| favor? Say, if one of the folks in the article decided to
| make a list of parties involved in this farce and inundate
| them with DMCA notices for something they have nothing to do
| with. Either that 's legal, in which case it can be used
| against the initial aggressors, or it's not, in which case
| they're equally liable.
|
| Edit: Okay, I read to the bottom of the post that pointed me
| to that text:
| https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-
| bee... and it _does_ in fact list "at least two" civil suits
| that look _really_ similar to the situation we 're discussing
| here.
| kyrofa wrote:
| IANAL, but I believe perjury can only happen under oath. This
| seems more like a bluff.
| rodgerd wrote:
| > but that's gotta actually qualify as perjury, surely?
|
| Lindsey Ellis did an exhaustive series of videos on exactly
| this topic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3v5wFMQRqs); yes,
| you can sue over false DMCA filings, but it's expensive and
| time-consuming and you may run out of money in the process.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| The way IPFS works though, isn't it by definition that any file
| you can get from one gateway, you should eventually be able to
| get from _any_ gateway?
|
| In other words: it doesn't matter your gateway logs shows that
| no one ever requested a file with a specific content hash,
| because should one eventually request that content hash from
| your gateway, they'd get the file in question.
|
| Honestly, until reading the headline, it never occurred to me
| what now I realize is stupidly obvious: the promise of p2p
| content-hash-based distribution is that it's robust and
| censorship-resistant, as the targeted data isn't bound to
| specific places, but rather is automatically mirrored and made
| available across the entire network. The flip side of the data
| being accessible from any point in the network, however, is
| that... the data is accessible from any point in the network -
| meaning that every point individually is distributing
| everything that's in the _entire_ network, and is potentially
| liable for it all.
| sneak wrote:
| A gateway is a bridge from http to ipfs. Not all nodes are
| gateways.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| But all gateways are nodes. Of course, unless we're talking
| CSAM, no one will be targeting arbitrary nodes. But
| gateways are, by definition, the publishers of what's in
| IPFS. They are frontends to the same backend - and thus it
| makes sense for each of them to be liable for _everything_
| that 's on the backend, i.e. the whole IPFS network.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| NAL. According to some youtubers I have seen who ran into this
| sort of frivolous claim, you can apparently send counter-
| notifications to those people, and that sets up some liability
| on their side if their DMCA takedown was indeed frivolous and
| they continue to pursue it. It does seem like a lot of work to
| send all those counter-notifications, though.
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| "I did some bash-fu to extract the IPFS hashes from the emails
| and grep for them in my nginx logs, and was surprised to find not
| a single match," Stanley explains. "None of them have ever been
| accessed, and of the ones that I checked, none even worked."
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Isn't filing a false DMCA takedown perjury, which is a criminal
| (rather than civil) matter?
| Natsu wrote:
| The provision is infamously toothless. A proper DMCA notice
| (yes, you can send improper ones...) is supposed to contain a
| statement made under penalty of perjury saying you are or
| represent the owner of the allegedly infringed upon work.
|
| So you just have to own the thing you claim is infringed, you
| do not have to be correct that the items you target with the
| notice are actually infringing upon your work. That stops me
| from claiming to own Mickey Mouse and sending notices against
| it. It does not stop me from claiming something I actually own
| copyright to and sending spurious notices to non-infringing
| works.
|
| Now, there might be some minor monetary liability for costs
| incurred by a completely bogus notice, but they're probably not
| large enough to sue over without ending up losing more money on
| the suit than you win in most cases, so it's relatively
| untested, though I think there may have been a settlement or
| two over such claims.
| RagnarD wrote:
| Any lawyers think that there's a case against the publishers for
| these harassing, inappropriate notices?
| gigel82 wrote:
| I recommend they hire an expensive law firm to process the
| requests, and a few contractors, then send the bills back to the
| reporter (one per request). I recon if more recipients do this
| it'll become expensive to carpet-bomb and they'll want to do some
| modicum of review on their side before sending these out.
| wmf wrote:
| You can bill for subpoenas and warrants but I've never heard of
| billing for DMCA takedowns. It's a cost of doing business.
| hedora wrote:
| Skip to the last paragraph:
|
| https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-
| no...
|
| Fraudulent takedown notices and fraudulent responses create
| liability. There's probably room for a "no-win, no-pay" law
| firm that bills $500/hour to handle fraudulent DMCA takedown
| notices. Bonus points to them if they donate half their
| income to the EFF.
| derbOac wrote:
| To be honest, this imho is what the EFF should be doing,
| hiring laywers to counteract this kind of thing. If they
| were doing this (or some whatever strategy they decided
| would be most effective), I'd probably donate more money to
| them.
| creer wrote:
| This is interesting. I was not aware of effective counter
| attacks to abusive DMCA notices. That site lists two very
| different results from 2004 and 2007 (and that web site is
| unmaintained and out of date.) There were other attempts,
| Cox in 2021, California Beach Co., LLC in 2020. And this
| law firm calls for customers in that area of DMCA abuse:
| https://www.hinchnewman.com/internet-law-
| blog/2015/04/legal-...
|
| There might be a developing environment in which to
| monetarily fight that abuse.
| jwilk wrote:
| Related:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36425433 ("Did I receive
| fraudulent DMCA takedowns?", 3 days ago, >150 comments)
| shrubble wrote:
| At least in the USA, it is a requirement that any legal
| representation by a corporation, be done by an actual lawyer.
|
| If a law firm or solo lawyer is not identifying themselves
| properly in a DMCA takedown request, which is a legal document,
| what happens? Does anyone know?
| kevingadd wrote:
| You can basically do anything you want as a large corporation
| when it comes to this stuff. The law doesn't have any teeth, as
| a smaller player you can't do anything about bogus DMCA notices
| or legal violations.
|
| Many services like Twitter or Chrome Web Store will _at best_
| put your content back up a few weeks (or months) later after
| you file a counter-notice; in some cases they will just nuke
| your account after a few notices even if the notices were
| bogus.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| Is there a societal benefit to US approach to lawsuits where
| anyone can sue anyone for anything?
|
| Is it something like MAD?
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| My understanding as a non-lawyer is that one can _file_ a
| lawsuit against anyone for anything, but for it to actually go
| anywhere instead of being quickly dismissed, it needs to be
| within the court 's jurisdiction and it needs to "state a
| claim", i.e. allege a violation for which the court could apply
| some relevant remedy.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| Maybe one could use this analogy, but those with the WMDs are
| the rich, the right owners that can hire an army of lawyers. So
| it's legal warfare against regular people.
|
| Also unlike MAD large corporations do regularly engage in
| fierce IP battles. Like Apple vs Samsung. I do see the pro
| arguments, but overall I find it doubtful if if it's a net
| positive for humanity to have strict IP laws at all.
|
| The American approach is the world's approach as far as rule-
| of-law countries go btw.
| qingcharles wrote:
| As someone who has moved from a non-litigious society to the
| USA I used to see it as insane. Then my rights were violated
| again, and again, and again, so I spent a decade getting legal
| smart and fighting back. Again and again I have forced
| government agencies into policy adjustments to stop their
| rights violations, and I am still in litigation now.
|
| The USA does make it very easy to sue someone, and when that
| someone is the government you can force practical changes that
| can affect a large number of people with your litigation. It
| might not get you any monetary benefit (it certainly hasn't for
| me), but that might also be a bonus.
| Beldin wrote:
| "Law enforcement - I.C.E. referals"
|
| This is from a slide deck on how to "protect" content, apparently
| by someone working for a law firm. Assuming the firm is US-based,
| this is literally suggesting to get immigration services to check
| out a suspected "wrongdoer".
|
| Lawyers huh... I just can't even.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| I have no love for lawyers, but Immigration and _Customs_
| Enforcement has, for better or worse, a role in these issues.
| badrabbit wrote:
| What is preventing a class action for frivolous DMCA notices?
| theonlybutlet wrote:
| Could this not be construed as vexatious litigation?
| riedel wrote:
| >To uphold the highest standards of integrity, responsible
| behavior, and ethical conduct in professional activities. (IEEE
| Code of Ethics) [1]
|
| Letting this happen IMHO is clearly a breach of IEEE's own rules.
| This goes against the public and has serious side effects. Nobody
| with a bit of knowledge on networking (which I hope exists within
| IEEE) should seriously think that those gateways are hosting the
| content.
|
| If someone with a role in IEEE reads this they should really stop
| this rogue firm they contracted before they seriously destroy
| some part of the internet some people rely on.
|
| [1]
| https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html#:~....
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| The IEEE has no power to stop people from doing things. It's a
| professional society, not a licensing/regulatory body.
| rch wrote:
| I'd like to be able to run something like an IPFS gateway if I
| could be reasonably certain I'd never get any annoying legal
| notices or attention. Are there any community maintained hash
| tables of verifiably unencumbered content that I could use as the
| basis of a filter?
| slang800 wrote:
| It wouldn't matter if you used a filter and your gateway didn't
| host copyrighted content.
|
| The ciu-online.net application doesn't check whether or not the
| content is accessible through your server before sending a
| notice. It sends notices for all content that might be on the
| IPFS network.
|
| You'll get annoying emails no matter what.
| hecturchi wrote:
| People operating IPFS gateways might benefit from using NOpfs,
| pulling the official public gateways badbits.deny list:
|
| https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/nopfs
| wmf wrote:
| How's the progress on an IPFS browser client that doesn't require
| a gateway?
| dave78 wrote:
| Depending on your definition, I think Brave does this already
| doesn't it?
| brunoqc wrote:
| Or progress on useful stuff like an encrypted Dropbox clone or
| something. Everytime I see ipfs stuff it's about silly crypto
| things.
| [deleted]
| inhumantsar wrote:
| IPFS isn't the right use case for a dropbox clone. It behaves
| like a CDN with no persistence guarantees.
|
| Arweave is better suited to archival storage. There are
| options for participants to ban particular types of content
| which may be illegal to host in their jurisdiction. This was
| designed to prevent the spread of CP, terrorism related info,
| etc. but that means it is also susceptible to DCMA issues
| too.
|
| https://www.arweave.org/
| brunoqc wrote:
| > IPFS isn't the right use case for a dropbox clone. It
| behaves like a CDN with no persistence guarantees.
|
| Peergos kinda do it but maybe it's only for the transport
| and it uses S3 or something like that.
|
| > Arweave is better suited to archival storage
|
| Thanks, I'll take a look.
|
| I wish there was more exciting ipfs news beside nfts.
|
| EDIT: Arweave seems to be part of the crypto/web3 thing I'm
| not a fan of.
| imtringued wrote:
| Arweave promises a perpetual motion machine. Prepaying
| for storage is good but there is no way it is permanent.
| ianopolous wrote:
| Peergos is the most advanced encrypted dropbox clone on ipfs.
| Disclaimer, founder here. We even extend the block retrieval
| protocol so encrypted blocks are not public - like most data
| in ipfs - you need auth to retrieve them:
| https://peergos.org/posts/bats
|
| In terms of block stores we support local disk, or S3
| compatible.
|
| You can log in through any peergos instance (including
| localhost) and your writes are persisted directly to your
| instance. The whole thing is also independent of DNS and the
| TLS CAs (except of course if you use a public web interface)
| colinsane wrote:
| way back (well before Ethereum and NFTs), i hosted a blog on
| IPFS. DNS level stuff:
|
| - TXT record with an IPFS content identifier
|
| - A record pointing to an IPFS gateway that ran on my laptop
| (and was restricted to only serving my own content)
|
| - fallback A records that pointed to the public IPFS gateways
|
| i could publish new content from my laptop, and as long as i
| had one other reader who browsed it via native IPFS (i did),
| then i could pretty safely not worry about my own uptime.
|
| that was pretty useful to me at the time who had no clue how
| to be a sysadmin and keep good uptime and whatnot.
| brunoqc wrote:
| I like this about ipfs. I don't understand why ipfs didn't
| lit the world on fire yet and they only seems to care about
| web3/crypto/nft these days.
| gary_0 wrote:
| If someone hosts a JavaScript app on their webserver that
| accesses IPFS using WebRTC or something, won't they still get
| DMCA-bombed? It's not like these lawyers care where the files
| are actually hosted, and there are effectively no consequences
| for indiscriminate DMCA-ing.
|
| Even if you make an IPFS browser extension, you could still get
| complaints and Google might still take it down, no? Are there
| any IPFS mobile apps that don't require sideloading?
|
| You have a chance of getting away with anything else on the
| Web, but anger the Copyright Gods and there's nowhere you can
| hide.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Ipfs software is like BitTorrent.
|
| There's no legal pathway to taking down the software. Only
| the gateways which aren't necessary for IPFS.
|
| This is basically copyright holders sending DMCA to trackers.
| Trackers haven't been necessary for using torrents but it
| makes them more accessible.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| You can download the IPFS desktop app and browse IPFS freely
| without the need of a centralized gateway. Brave can use the
| desktop app for its native IPFS support. If you intend to use
| it to share anything, you need some extra setup, though.
|
| I don't think any browsers have IPFS built in. For IPFS to be
| at its most useful (as in, your computer exchanging data with
| the network and actually participating in it), you need things
| like port forwards or IPv6 pinhole support, and I don't think
| that's something many people will do.
|
| Edit: Brave supports IPFS natively these days. Go to
| brave://settings/web3 and set "Method to resolve IPFS
| resources" to "Brave local IPFS node".
| wuiheerfoj wrote:
| Brave ships with an IPFS node now
| jeroenhd wrote:
| You're right! I didn't notice because it's not the default
| and it auto redirected me, but that's a nice improvement!
| dabinat wrote:
| The part that caught my eye in the presentation was that it
| suggested the possibility of digging into someone's immigration
| status and reporting them to ICE. It shocks me that a private
| corporation would get someone deported for doing something that's
| not illegal.
| jonhohle wrote:
| Read about what private corporations did in the 40s and 50s to
| maintain land in Central America and the Middle East. Hundreds
| of thousands of people died and democracies were replaced by
| dictators so Chaquita didn't have to sell land being
| repossessed under imminent domain. Simile story in Iran with
| Standard Oil. Getting someone deported is pretty low on the
| list of atrocities corporations would do to make a buck.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Customs applies to digital
| goods, too.
| ascendantlogic wrote:
| These are very large corporations with very large profits to
| protect. It's awful to think about but not surprising in the
| least.
| jstanley wrote:
| I'm the hardbin guy.
|
| Since I wrote the post about the DMCA takedown notices the other
| day, someone kindly offered to provide alternative hosting for
| hardbin.com that should be more resilient to bogus DMCA
| takedowns, so happily hardbin.com is back online (but not
| operated by me any more).
|
| Also I emailed Sean Lang (the guy with the github repo with
| dozens of example DMCA emails from these guys) and it turns out
| that in the last few months he _also_ took his IPFS gateway
| offline because dealing with the takedowns was too much trouble.
| slang800 wrote:
| Yeah, I took ipfs.slang.cx down after Hetzner threatened to
| kick me off their service.
|
| I was able to stay on top of the takedowns by writing a script
| to create & deploy nginx block rules for each URL in the DMCA
| emails. Obviously I had no time for manual review of the URLs.
| But I guess that didn't matter and Hetzner got annoyed with all
| the emails and decided my business wasn't worth the trouble.
| qingcharles wrote:
| How did Hetzner become aware of the notices? Were they CC'd
| to them?
|
| I ask because I'm building a web site currently hosted on
| Hetzner that will provide access to files that have fallen
| into the public domain, _but also files that for all intents
| and purposes appear to copyright orphans_. I will take down
| anything where an entity asserts a valid copyright against
| anything where a mistake has been made, but I don 't want
| Hetzner just arbitrarily shooting down my site.
| tinco wrote:
| Don't directly expose your servers to the web, proxy them
| through some other provider so that whenever that provider
| falls under pressure you already have the infrastructure to
| move to different ip addresses and you don't have to deal
| with the hassle of migrating your data to other servers.
| slang800 wrote:
| First the ciu-online.net people sent DMCA notices to myself
| and Cloudflare, since I used Cloudflare as a caching proxy.
| Eventually Cloudflare gave them the IP address of my server
| and the ciu-online.net people were able to determine that
| IP address was owned by Hetzner.
|
| Now they send DMCA notices to myself, Cloudflare, and
| Hetzner. I think the goal is to annoy as many people as
| possible. Even after I shut off my IPFS gateway they
| continued sending notices.
|
| Anyway, if you're hosting anything that might generate a
| DMCA notice, don't use Hetzner. They will kick you off even
| if you're complying with the DMCA process. Also, they make
| you submit a statement on abuse.hetzner.com for every
| single DMCA notice that gets sent to them. If you don't
| submit the statement in 24 hours they threaten to block
| your IP address. It is extremely tedious and annoying.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Thank you for the advice. I will shop around. The trouble
| is that Hetzner are almost an order of magnitude cheaper
| than the next best. You get what you pay for.
|
| Any recommendations?
| nanidin wrote:
| > Even after I shut off my IPFS gateway they continued
| sending notices.
|
| It seems like those notices were made in bad faith. It
| would be nice if they faced some punishment.
| grayhatter wrote:
| >Eventually Cloudflare gave them the IP address of my
| server and the ciu-online.net people were able to
| determine that IP address was owned by Hetzner.
|
| Wait... isn't the point of paying cloudflare to prevent
| DoS attacks?
| rodgerd wrote:
| Cloudflare will fight tooth and nail to keep Stormfront
| online, not IPFS.
| hackerfactor1 wrote:
| Sounds similar to a SLAPP: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
| Participation
|
| The goal is to burden the recipient with overhead costs that it
| becomes impractical or cost-prohibitive to participate.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Doesn't the plaintiff have to be the government for a lawsuit
| to be a "SLAPP" suit?
| schlauerfox wrote:
| These are different state by state, but Anti-SLAPP is meant
| to protect from vexatious litigants, that is someone rich
| threatening to sue you to shut you up. I'm not a lawyer, I
| just listen to Serious Trouble podcast.
| ldehaan wrote:
| [dead]
| briantakita wrote:
| > because dealing with the takedowns was too much trouble.
|
| What are the consequences of ignoring these notices?
| thrashh wrote:
| The DMCA is protection for an operator because instead of the
| first step being "get sued," you get a letter and if you
| comply, you are protected.
|
| If you ignore them, it's basically as if the DMCA never
| existed and they can just sue you. And without the DMCA, you
| are liable if it's some random user uploading copyrighted
| content to your website.
| lol768 wrote:
| > If you ignore them, it's basically as if the DMCA never
| existed and they can just sue you.
|
| Pretty sure jes is in the UK though, and it's not the sort
| of thing you'd ever be extradited over... so not really
| sure why the notices matter. I guess some hosting providers
| are more sympathetic here than others.
| toyg wrote:
| US-UK extradition agreements are so lopsided and wide-
| ranging, you can basically assume that one _will_ be
| extradited for breaching US law while on Airstrip One.
|
| That infamous treaty has turned the Special Relationship
| into full-on vassalage.
| masfuerte wrote:
| Don't be so sure. The English courts agreed to extradite
| Richard O'Dwyer to America for link sharing. In the end
| he avoided it by signing a deferred prosecution agreement
| and paying a fine.
| hulitu wrote:
| Like in any corrupted democracy, it depends. See Asange
| for a counterexample.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| What exactly do you mean by counterexample? Assange has
| had access to UK courts to attempt to challenge his
| extradition, but he hasn't been successful. He's nearly
| exhausted all the possible things to appeal.
| slang800 wrote:
| I'm not sure how likely it is that they'll try to sue me for
| failing to take down content, but I don't want to find out.
|
| Running an IPFS gateway doesn't make me any money and even
| consulting a lawyer is way outside my hobby project budget.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-25 23:01 UTC)