Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

"So what you're saying is, your computers cannot possibly not continue damaging the plaintiff's interests." "That's correct." "You're being honest with me." "Yes, your Honor." "Will the computers continue harming the plaintiff's interests if shut off?" "... That would be dreadfully inconvenient, your Honor." "Do you have a more convenient solution?" "No, your Honor." "You are hereby ordered to turn off your computers in 48 hours." "... You can't do that." "I can do a lot of things, including jailing you if you disobey my lawful authority. 48 hours."

Engineers often think that they are the first people in history to have thought "Hey, wouldn't it be easy to pull one over on the legal system?" This is, in fact, quite routine. The legal system interprets attempts to route around it as damage and responds to damage with overwhelming force.




What Patrick says is technically true. But before granting the "extraordinary remedy" of an injunction, U.S. courts would apply the traditional four-factor test, which includes assessing:

+ the balance of hardships between allowing the conduct in question to continue vs. issuing the injunction;

+ whether the damage being caused by the conduct in question could be satisfactorily remedied by a payment of money as opposed to a mandate or a prohibition; and

+ (importantly) the public interest.

See, e.g., the Supreme Court's discussion of the four-factor test in eBay v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=481934433895457...


How about a blockchain-based NPM? Can't take all the computers down.

Legal, shmegal.


You can still be jailed for contempt of the order, though.

"I've found a clever workaround for court orders" doesn't work around that bit.


OK, now tell me how you can remove this file from BitTorrent (it's Fedora 18 KDE)

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:14f146cdfaef83951ca9d3ac647e18e1977d1367

I'll wait


It's not about whether the removal is logistically possible, it's about whether a court can punish someone for failing to carry out the removal.

Even when the former is actually impossible, a court could still punish for the latter. "Ha ha ha I use technology to cleverly show how futile your orders are" is not the kind of thing you want to say to a court with broad contempt powers.


The court can't punish you for not being able to do the impossible. That's ludicrous. "We have shut down all of our servers, yes. We can't stop people from downloading this, no"


That's because all laws make sense and all people who enforce and judge them are understand this.


Pay damages, then.


Pay damages because someone else uploaded something by accident and you can't fix it? It doesn't work like that.


It only doesn't work like that in the context of safe harbor laws.

If the safe harbor law protection doesn't apply, and the defendant is responsible for the illegal behavior, the defendant can absolutely be held legally liable and pay the legally-appropriate punishment.


Why should you pay the damages for something that's not on your server?


If the "forbidden" action was previous to proceedings and carried out in good faith by unknown parties, it would be very hard to sanction anyone.


Just live outside of the United States, and you'll be fine.


Yeah, there's literally no other courts outside the USA.


Yeah, because the US doesn't have treaties with most of the world...


Would that work if you did it before the court order?


No.


that's why we'll kurtzweill ourselves into the computers that can't be shut down!


Or something like http://ipfs.io/


IFPS is cool, however pretty far away from being usable as a package management system... Some package management system could use it as a backend, though.


In fact, gx[0] is such a package management system.

[0]: https://github.com/whyrusleeping/gx



Yep, but someone should implement that first. Package repositories have pretty much centralized control still, and will have for foreseeable future.


npm already replicates to hundreds of other servers. Right now, it is practically infeasible to actually remove packages permanently.


That's why I'm looking into IPFS(https://ipfs.io) as part of my infrastructure. How that would look then, with IPFS...

> "So what you're saying is, your computers cannot possibly not continue damaging the plaintiff's interests." "That's correct."

> "You're being honest with me." "Yes, your Honor."

> "Will the computers continue harming the plaintiff's interests if shut off?" "No it wouldn't, your Honor.".....

And suddenly things like NPM can transfer the data to other machines, and those machines themselves can also provide to others. Deletions are impossible if people still want the content.

And IPFS guarantees that if a single node has the data, then any node can download it and also be part of the cloud that provides the data. Once it's out, it's impossible to retract.


> The legal system interprets attempts to route around it as damage and responds to damage with overwhelming force.

In other words, Hulk Hogan vs Gawker.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: