4 ms·

In my example peer A is serving the video to me; a conclusion that I am serving the stream anywhere would be unwarranted and must be easy to debunk in court.

kmeisthax 6y ago
You have it backwards. You're Peer A in the example. The copyright owner joins the swarm, pretending to be a normal peer, and starts downloading the file from participants to prove that an infringement occurred. This works because most P2P systems have a way to enforce that swarm participants contribute upload bandwidth, which also puts them at risk of a copyright lawsuit. PeerTube specifically uses WebTorrent, a WebRTC-tunneled version of BitTorrent, so it has tit-for-tat rules. Someone using a modified download-only client in the swarm will get a terribly slow experience unless the swarm is absolutely massive.
- strogonoff 6y ago
  Right, makes sense. Well then, there’s still a major difference from BitTorrent: the fact that as soon as I stop watching and close the tab, the video is gone from my system and I’m no longer “distributing” it. When I’m watching a video for the first time, I have no way of knowing it’s infringing. Once I’m finished—subpoena all you want; all I’ve got to do is remember to not watch that particular video ever again. I could be in trouble if I’m seeding the video on purpose, presumably if I’m its creator. Which on balance could actually be more reasonable than status quo: I reckon %CORP% would be compelled to do their homework before going after some poor individual. If it turns out to be a frivolous lawsuit and the work is fully original, that’d actually backfire—something they clearly don’t have to fear with their shotgun automated DMCA takedowns and overly zealous detection algorithms. The stakes are higher for producers, but a legitimate creator confident in their work may well prefer that to the uncertainty and constant fear that %PLATFORM% mistakes your original work for something random and pulls the rug from under you. I think there’s a parallel to be drawn between YouTube and Amazon. Apparently, the latter is leaking legitimate sellers and becomes a haven to fly-by-night shady sellers due to its ease of setup but unpredictable enforcement[0]. Not unimaginable YouTube will trend the same way—remain the platform for algorithm-favored provocative, controversial, hateful videos that tread the line of legality, and lose authentic artists. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24177200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24177200

kmeisthax 6y ago

You have it backwards. You're Peer A in the example. The copyright owner joins the swarm, pretending to be a normal peer, and starts downloading the file from participants to prove that an infringement occurred. This works because most P2P systems have a way to enforce that swarm participants contribute upload bandwidth, which also puts them at risk of a copyright lawsuit. PeerTube specifically uses WebTorrent, a WebRTC-tunneled version of BitTorrent, so it has tit-for-tat rules. Someone using a modified download-only client in the swarm will get a terribly slow experience unless the swarm is absolutely massive.

strogonoff 6y ago
Right, makes sense. Well then, there’s still a major difference from BitTorrent: the fact that as soon as I stop watching and close the tab, the video is gone from my system and I’m no longer “distributing” it. When I’m watching a video for the first time, I have no way of knowing it’s infringing. Once I’m finished—subpoena all you want; all I’ve got to do is remember to not watch that particular video ever again. I could be in trouble if I’m seeding the video on purpose, presumably if I’m its creator. Which on balance could actually be more reasonable than status quo: I reckon %CORP% would be compelled to do their homework before going after some poor individual. If it turns out to be a frivolous lawsuit and the work is fully original, that’d actually backfire—something they clearly don’t have to fear with their shotgun automated DMCA takedowns and overly zealous detection algorithms. The stakes are higher for producers, but a legitimate creator confident in their work may well prefer that to the uncertainty and constant fear that %PLATFORM% mistakes your original work for something random and pulls the rug from under you. I think there’s a parallel to be drawn between YouTube and Amazon. Apparently, the latter is leaking legitimate sellers and becomes a haven to fly-by-night shady sellers due to its ease of setup but unpredictable enforcement[0]. Not unimaginable YouTube will trend the same way—remain the platform for algorithm-favored provocative, controversial, hateful videos that tread the line of legality, and lose authentic artists. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24177200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24177200