3 ms·

Stupid question: when people inevitably use this for pirate content, and the feds try to shut the service down ... what's the plan?

dewey 3mo ago
Someone is still hosting the content and paying for resources just like with every other service distributed or not so it doesn't really add anything new to the equation.
rpgbr 3mo ago
The feds will go after the instance admin that is sharing pirate content.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- Gigachad 3mo ago
  Isn't the design of peertube that you can view videos originally uploaded by other instances? So unless you decide to not federate, you are responsible for every video on every instance.
  - rpgbr 3mo ago
    Yes, but you can federate selectively, as in choosing which other instances you want to. And, yes, federating turns you responsible for the content of the other instance (IMHO; not legal advice or even fact checked).
paxys 3mo ago
They can't shut down the service because there is no single service. They can go after individual servers, and that is fine. The admin is responsible for what happens on their server.
- dymk 3mo ago
  Why would an admin run a server if they might have the feds knocking at their door? Sure, people might run nodes that host only their content, but they sure are disincentivized from running any sort of shared service. This is the same problem as TOR exit nodes and why 3 letter agencies run most of them.
  - mywittyname 3mo ago
    Maybe the live where the feds can't get them?
  - pocksuppet 3mo ago
    This is the same problem as why an admin would run a forum if the feds might knock at the door, or why an admin would run a website about cats if the feds might knock at the door. It's an overblown fear.
    - dymk 3mo ago
      You don't have to convince me, you have to convince all the would-be hosts who would rather not take the chance.
      - pocksuppet 3mo ago
        People do host those things, so clearly they don't need convincing. I'm replying to you because you are the one who said it on Hacker News, and I'm concerned that people might read the FUD on Hacker News and it might stop them from hosting something.
  - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
    it's a safe harbor. If the admin unlists videos when they get a DMCA takedown they are in the green. believe it or not, YT too gets a crapload of copyrighted content uploaded hourly yet they exist
    - 3mo ago
treyd 3mo ago
The plan is the same as it always has been. It's no different than running an open FTP server.
busymom0 3mo ago
I am gonna guess it's similar to torrenting and seeding?

dewey 3mo ago

Someone is still hosting the content and paying for resources just like with every other service distributed or not so it doesn't really add anything new to the equation.

rpgbr 3mo ago

The feds will go after the instance admin that is sharing pirate content.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
Gigachad 3mo ago
Isn't the design of peertube that you can view videos originally uploaded by other instances? So unless you decide to not federate, you are responsible for every video on every instance.
- rpgbr 3mo ago
  Yes, but you can federate selectively, as in choosing which other instances you want to. And, yes, federating turns you responsible for the content of the other instance (IMHO; not legal advice or even fact checked).

paxys 3mo ago

They can't shut down the service because there is no single service. They can go after individual servers, and that is fine. The admin is responsible for what happens on their server.

dymk 3mo ago
Why would an admin run a server if they might have the feds knocking at their door? Sure, people might run nodes that host only their content, but they sure are disincentivized from running any sort of shared service. This is the same problem as TOR exit nodes and why 3 letter agencies run most of them.
- mywittyname 3mo ago
  Maybe the live where the feds can't get them?
- pocksuppet 3mo ago
  This is the same problem as why an admin would run a forum if the feds might knock at the door, or why an admin would run a website about cats if the feds might knock at the door. It's an overblown fear.
  - dymk 3mo ago
    You don't have to convince me, you have to convince all the would-be hosts who would rather not take the chance.
    - pocksuppet 3mo ago
      People do host those things, so clearly they don't need convincing. I'm replying to you because you are the one who said it on Hacker News, and I'm concerned that people might read the FUD on Hacker News and it might stop them from hosting something.
- ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
  it's a safe harbor. If the admin unlists videos when they get a DMCA takedown they are in the green. believe it or not, YT too gets a crapload of copyrighted content uploaded hourly yet they exist
  - 3mo ago

treyd 3mo ago

The plan is the same as it always has been. It's no different than running an open FTP server.

busymom0 3mo ago

I am gonna guess it's similar to torrenting and seeding?