4 ms·

In which way is IPFS immune to content takedowns? IPFS provides no anonymity, so it won't take long before DMCA notices to start arriving.

tom_mellior 10y ago
> In which way is IPFS immune to content takedowns? In the way that, if one node is forced to take down some information, that information may still be accessible from other nodes under the same address as before. It's not quite immunity: They can still harrass individuals. Call it "resilience", maybe. > IPFS provides no anonymity, so it won't take long before DMCA notices to start arriving. It should compose well with Tor, I'd hope.
- clueless404 10y ago
  Which makes it about as resilient as regular content hosting, which is not very. Does IPFS work with Tor?
  - mburns 10y ago
    >Which makes it about as resilient as regular content hosting, which is not very. It is decidedly more resilient than regular hosting in that situation.
    - clueless404 10y ago
      How so? IPFS so only as resilient as you are good at dodging DMCA notices.
      - mburns 10y ago
        Because mirroring content on IPFS is trivial and transparent to the consumer. All it takes is a single user (or an arbitrary number) outside of US jurisdiction and the content is more or less DMCA-immune. The equivalent is not practical in traditional HTTP, where content at risk of being taken down is scraped from the server and that snapshot-in-time is hosted as a mirror, generally at a different domain.
        clueless404 10y ago
        > Because mirroring content on IPFS is trivial and transparent to the consumer. Which is also why a regular consumer should never use IPFS and why prosumer should immediately disable caching and seeding upon install. > All it takes is a single user (or an arbitrary number) outside of US jurisdiction and the content is more or less DMCA-immune. Perhaps so, but if your plan for resiliency is based on the kindness of strangers in countries where the DMCA nor censorship does not apply, it's not much of a plan. Plus you'll still have to seed the original which opens you up to liability, as IPFS does not provide any kind of anonymity. So, while better than traditional HTTP, IPFS isn't really immune to takedowns nor very resilient.
        wyager 10y ago
        > Perhaps so, but if your plan for resiliency is based on the kindness of strangers in countries where the DMCA nor censorship does not apply, it's not much of a plan. Have you ever used Bittorent? It works great.
        clueless404 10y ago
        It works great only for a limited number of use cases. It's terrible for unpopular content, it is not immune to takedown notices nor is it very resilient in the face of a determined adversary.
        Senji 10y ago
        That's what zeronet is for.
        clueless404 10y ago
        Could you expand on that? Zeronet offers no anonymity, you have to use Tor for that.
        aaroninsf 10y ago
        Backing 'long tail' content with webseeds works well for Bittorrent. ...but that's the same as saying let's back the decentralized web with centralized resources erp.

tom_mellior 10y ago

> In which way is IPFS immune to content takedowns? In the way that, if one node is forced to take down some information, that information may still be accessible from other nodes under the same address as before. It's not quite immunity: They can still harrass individuals. Call it "resilience", maybe. > IPFS provides no anonymity, so it won't take long before DMCA notices to start arriving. It should compose well with Tor, I'd hope.

clueless404 10y ago
Which makes it about as resilient as regular content hosting, which is not very. Does IPFS work with Tor?
- mburns 10y ago
  >Which makes it about as resilient as regular content hosting, which is not very. It is decidedly more resilient than regular hosting in that situation.
  - clueless404 10y ago
    How so? IPFS so only as resilient as you are good at dodging DMCA notices.
    - mburns 10y ago
      Because mirroring content on IPFS is trivial and transparent to the consumer. All it takes is a single user (or an arbitrary number) outside of US jurisdiction and the content is more or less DMCA-immune. The equivalent is not practical in traditional HTTP, where content at risk of being taken down is scraped from the server and that snapshot-in-time is hosted as a mirror, generally at a different domain.
      - clueless404 10y ago
        > Because mirroring content on IPFS is trivial and transparent to the consumer. Which is also why a regular consumer should never use IPFS and why prosumer should immediately disable caching and seeding upon install. > All it takes is a single user (or an arbitrary number) outside of US jurisdiction and the content is more or less DMCA-immune. Perhaps so, but if your plan for resiliency is based on the kindness of strangers in countries where the DMCA nor censorship does not apply, it's not much of a plan. Plus you'll still have to seed the original which opens you up to liability, as IPFS does not provide any kind of anonymity. So, while better than traditional HTTP, IPFS isn't really immune to takedowns nor very resilient.
        wyager 10y ago
        > Perhaps so, but if your plan for resiliency is based on the kindness of strangers in countries where the DMCA nor censorship does not apply, it's not much of a plan. Have you ever used Bittorent? It works great.
        clueless404 10y ago
        It works great only for a limited number of use cases. It's terrible for unpopular content, it is not immune to takedown notices nor is it very resilient in the face of a determined adversary.
        Senji 10y ago
        That's what zeronet is for.
        clueless404 10y ago
        Could you expand on that? Zeronet offers no anonymity, you have to use Tor for that.
        aaroninsf 10y ago
        Backing 'long tail' content with webseeds works well for Bittorrent. ...but that's the same as saying let's back the decentralized web with centralized resources erp.