Also the assumptions here kind of remind me of domain fronting: https://www.zdnet.com/article/amazons-aws-latest-to-give-up-.... Basically, it's assuming IPFS will protect it from the authorities, but what might actually happen is it makes IPFS a target of the authorities. Now that probably won't happen with this because the authorities don't actually care that much about torrenting/piracy, but the error is still there.
The "rules for the government to follow" are the laws, and these aren't being made up, but rather pre-exist (safe harbour laws) with some pretty strong backers (goog et al)
> The "rules for the government to follow" are the laws, and these aren't being made up, but rather pre-exist (safe harbour laws) with some pretty strong backers (goog et al)
That's true, but to elaborate on that quote a little bit: you can still make the mistake the it describes by making up your own interpretations of "the laws," rather than making up rules out of whole cloth. That's extremely common (especially with Constitutional law), and probably the most frequent way of making that mistake.
Exactly. I forget where I just saw this. It seemed like a particularly absurd example, but the examples are numerous. Torrent sites don’t have the copyrighted content either, but they get shut down all the time.
But the torrents themselves tend to stay seeded... if you stick the site itself on IPFS and anyone in any jurisdiction can "seed" it, then it's going to be hard to kill by court order.
