Posted by anthonyberet on 09/20/05 08:52

Technomage Hawke wrote:
> filegrabber wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>And if the content in question here was not a movie and they went after
>>this thread's poster based on the name, then that I believe is also
>>wrong! Maybe I should start naming all my files to the latest and
>>greatest hits and let the bastards come after me. It's getting really old
>>really quick, and I'm sick of it all!
>
>
> actually, that isn't such a bad idea.
>
> I am looking at the "fake files" bit with the idea that if they do try and
> sue me (or have my service terminated), I can counter sue claiming that the
> data in question isn't what they represented. anyway, thats a proposal in a
> nutshell, and I do not want to get sued (I don't have the necessary funding
> to even hire a lawyer). Still, it is an interesting exercise pertaining to
> the law.
>

This is something I have been thinking about.
Supposing on a browse of a user, you didn't get just their collection
but those of everyone on that primary? (this is similar to the
'ghost-files' bug).
Then the **IA couldn't get a definitive list of a user's shares without
downloading them.
In order to combat that threat, what if a small number (say 10%) of
transfers would be proxied via another peer on the primary?
- In that case, there would always be doubt about whether the IP address
recorded was actually the source of the files.

[Back to original message]