4 ms·

A strange choice given that distributing copyrighted materials violates the IPFS Code of Conduct [0]. Why not use BitTorrent whose attitude toward copyright is

A strange choice given that distributing copyrighted materials violates the IPFS Code of Conduct [0]. Why not use BitTorrent whose attitude toward copyright is much more in sync with libgen's? [0] https://github.com/ipfs/community/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md#copyright-violations https://github.com/ipfs/community/blob/master/code-of-conduc...

segfaultbuserr 6y ago
LibGen already has "torrent per 1000 files" for a long time, some books also have their individual torrents but it's not common. I'm not sure why, but I think the problem is that files on BitTorrent cannot be directly addressed by hashes, it had to go through an intermediate step called a "torrent", which does not uniquely identify individual files directly. You can always select the one file you need from a huge torrent, but it's not as convenient as directly addressing files by their hashes.
- dooglius 6y ago
  That's fair, BitTorrent v2 does solve this problem, but I can't say I've seen any v2 torrents around (not that I'm specifically looking)
elvis70 6y ago
Ah, thanks for mentioning that. If I understand well, it's a distributed filesystem but there is still an authority able to ban users or contents?
- diggan 6y ago
  The answer for both BitTorrent and IPFS is: No.
  - m-p-3 6y ago
    They can blacklist hashes on the ipfs.io reverse proxy, but they cannot block you from accessing those through a different node like your own.
diggan 6y ago
Protocols don't have attitudes, everything you're using IPFS for you could also use BitTorrent for (almost). The protocols don't really care about what data you send, and no one can stop you from using them, BT or IPFS. The CoC you've linked covers the IPFS Community and other Protocol Labs initiatives, it doesn't cover usage of IPFS itself. freeread.org is not bound by that CoC.
- josu 6y ago
  The protocol can't, but the network can. https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/mirror-of-sci-hub-in-ipfs/1613 https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/mirror-of-sci-hub-in-ipfs/1613
  - diggan 6y ago
    Your link is to a forum hosted by Protocol Labs for the IPFS Community. Of course they are trying to follow their own CoC on their own properties, especially when it comes to copyright infringement. As a US company, they're bound to follow US law. Hardly surprising. What does that have to do with the network? Again, the network nor the protocol currently has nothing in place that describes a "attitude" of being against copyright infringement. I remember that we (I'm a ex-Protocol Labs employee) used to have plenty of discussions about adding allow/blocklists to the protocol that people could opt-in to, but don't think that was never added (yet?). If it was, I'd understand where you're coming from.
  - georgyo 6y ago
    They are specifically asking for help and guidance to break the law. Any public community has to avoid those questions like the plague. Remember youtube-dl got taken down because it's README file referenced copyrighted material. It doesn't matter if a tool _could_ be used distribiting copyright material. The tool (and communities) cannot promote anything related to that use case at all. The same is true with bittorrent. Bittorrent _could_ be used to download copyrighted music and movies, but you won't find a single reference to anything like that use case on their web page because that is illegal: https://www.bittorrent.com/ https://www.bittorrent.com/ In fact the bittorrent terms of service says you may not use the tool for any illegal purposes: https://www.bittorrent.com/legal/terms-of-use/ https://www.bittorrent.com/legal/terms-of-use/
josu 6y ago
Yeah, and the fact that they've already decided to blacklist sci-hub. https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/mirror-of-sci-hub-in-ipfs/1613 https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/mirror-of-sci-hub-in-ipfs/1613
- arsome 6y ago
  Am I missing something? I don't see any mention of a blacklist in that thread. They did close it because of course, they don't want to be in Limewire's position, where they get held responsible for the tech they built because they supported, even in a minor way, its use in piracy.
- diggan 6y ago
  Just to clarify what josu means here: > they've The IPFS Forum - Run by Protocol Labs > decided to blacklist Banned discussions around breaking the law on a public internet property owned by a US company. None of this concerns the protocol itself, which you are free to use for whatever you want, just like HTTP.
toomuchtodo 6y ago
> given that distributing copyrighted materials violates the IPFS Code of Conduct Everyone has wishes, but wishes aren’t enforceable. It’s the equivalent of “Stop! Or I’ll say stop again!”
m-p-3 6y ago
> distributing copyrighted materials violates the IPFS Code of Conduct Even if so, what can they (the IPFS devs) even do about it?

segfaultbuserr 6y ago

LibGen already has "torrent per 1000 files" for a long time, some books also have their individual torrents but it's not common. I'm not sure why, but I think the problem is that files on BitTorrent cannot be directly addressed by hashes, it had to go through an intermediate step called a "torrent", which does not uniquely identify individual files directly. You can always select the one file you need from a huge torrent, but it's not as convenient as directly addressing files by their hashes.

dooglius 6y ago
That's fair, BitTorrent v2 does solve this problem, but I can't say I've seen any v2 torrents around (not that I'm specifically looking)

elvis70 6y ago

Ah, thanks for mentioning that. If I understand well, it's a distributed filesystem but there is still an authority able to ban users or contents?

diggan 6y ago
The answer for both BitTorrent and IPFS is: No.
- m-p-3 6y ago
  They can blacklist hashes on the ipfs.io reverse proxy, but they cannot block you from accessing those through a different node like your own.

diggan 6y ago

Protocols don't have attitudes, everything you're using IPFS for you could also use BitTorrent for (almost). The protocols don't really care about what data you send, and no one can stop you from using them, BT or IPFS. The CoC you've linked covers the IPFS Community and other Protocol Labs initiatives, it doesn't cover usage of IPFS itself. freeread.org is not bound by that CoC.

josu 6y ago
The protocol can't, but the network can. https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/mirror-of-sci-hub-in-ipfs/1613 https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/mirror-of-sci-hub-in-ipfs/1613
- diggan 6y ago
  Your link is to a forum hosted by Protocol Labs for the IPFS Community. Of course they are trying to follow their own CoC on their own properties, especially when it comes to copyright infringement. As a US company, they're bound to follow US law. Hardly surprising. What does that have to do with the network? Again, the network nor the protocol currently has nothing in place that describes a "attitude" of being against copyright infringement. I remember that we (I'm a ex-Protocol Labs employee) used to have plenty of discussions about adding allow/blocklists to the protocol that people could opt-in to, but don't think that was never added (yet?). If it was, I'd understand where you're coming from.
- georgyo 6y ago
  They are specifically asking for help and guidance to break the law. Any public community has to avoid those questions like the plague. Remember youtube-dl got taken down because it's README file referenced copyrighted material. It doesn't matter if a tool _could_ be used distribiting copyright material. The tool (and communities) cannot promote anything related to that use case at all. The same is true with bittorrent. Bittorrent _could_ be used to download copyrighted music and movies, but you won't find a single reference to anything like that use case on their web page because that is illegal: https://www.bittorrent.com/ https://www.bittorrent.com/ In fact the bittorrent terms of service says you may not use the tool for any illegal purposes: https://www.bittorrent.com/legal/terms-of-use/ https://www.bittorrent.com/legal/terms-of-use/

josu 6y ago

Yeah, and the fact that they've already decided to blacklist sci-hub. https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/mirror-of-sci-hub-in-ipfs/1613 https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/mirror-of-sci-hub-in-ipfs/1613

arsome 6y ago
Am I missing something? I don't see any mention of a blacklist in that thread. They did close it because of course, they don't want to be in Limewire's position, where they get held responsible for the tech they built because they supported, even in a minor way, its use in piracy.
diggan 6y ago
Just to clarify what josu means here: > they've The IPFS Forum - Run by Protocol Labs > decided to blacklist Banned discussions around breaking the law on a public internet property owned by a US company. None of this concerns the protocol itself, which you are free to use for whatever you want, just like HTTP.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

> given that distributing copyrighted materials violates the IPFS Code of Conduct Everyone has wishes, but wishes aren’t enforceable. It’s the equivalent of “Stop! Or I’ll say stop again!”

m-p-3 6y ago

> distributing copyrighted materials violates the IPFS Code of Conduct Even if so, what can they (the IPFS devs) even do about it?