[cyphar]

If it's a special-purpose blockchain they can just sue everyone who is participating in propagating the blockchain. If I were on their side, that's what I'd do. You can also sue everyone who distributes software that uses those particular blocks. And using BitCoin would be the wrong technical decision (and would still not protect people who distribute special-purpose software that extracts that information).

This is a situation where trying to use technical measures to try to get around a law is not a good idea. Aside from the fact that the DMCA is incredibly generic and states that "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." So it doesn't matter /how/ it's circumvented, all that matters is whether it was circumvented. But more importantly, if you use a technology to try to get around copyright law (even if your usage is completely legal), you're just asking for the copyright lobby to attack you. Just look at what happened to BitTorrent.

[stale2002]

You don't have to build special purpose software, though.

All you got to do is know the block number that it was published on.

Maybe you could even have the "speciality purpose software" published in the bitcoin blockchain itself.

It might still be "illegal", but the purpose is not to be 100% bullet proof.

The purpose is to make enforcement so expensive as to be impractical.

I am glad that you brought up bittorrent, though.

Bittorrent and torrents in general is a great example of how you can spend billions trying to enforce copyright law, and yet free Game of Thrones episodes are still a click away, for me.

Technical solutions to fighting DMCA have worked extraordinarily well.

The copyright lobby has massively failed to achieve its goals.

[cyphar]

> You don't have to build special purpose software, though.

> All you got to do is know the block number that it was published on.

> Maybe you could even have the "speciality purpose software" published in the bitcoin blockchain itself.

Okay, and how is your web browser going to access that list? At some point there has to be a path from the "anonymous" blockchain to your browser, and that's who will get sued.

> The purpose is to make enforcement so expensive as to be impractical.

I still think you're trying to solve the wrong problem. Breaking the law doesn't help your cause. You need to challenge people who are abusing laws, because that's how you actually make a change in this arena.

> Bittorrent and torrents in general is a great example of how you can spend billions trying to enforce copyright law, and yet free Game of Thrones episodes are still a click away, for me.

> The copyright lobby has massively failed to achieve its goals.

That's an incredibly optimistic view. The copyright lobby has successfully managed to create the most pervasive DRM systems in existence thanks to the threat of "piracy", including EME. While a large number of people still torrent, the copyright lobby has managed to smear the entire technology. Who distributes their own content via BitTorrent? Almost nobody (distributions are the only example I can think of).

That doesn't sound like success from our side to me. In Australia, ISPs will DNS-block torrenting websites and also null-route any torrent traffic.

[oelmekki]

> Okay, and how is your web browser going to access that list?

Through blockchain.info, which is also the perfect tool for law enforcers to track possibly fraudulent money transactions, so they can't do without it.

> You need to challenge people who are abusing laws, because that's how you actually make a change in this arena.

Why choose? We can do both. EFF has expanded in parallel to TOR development. That's nothing uncommon. Plus, it's a huge argument for political groups to be able to say : "we can fight this through technical tools that we already have, but we want to find a peaceful solution with you". You don't negotiate when you can't achieve anything the other side doesn't want.

> Who distributes their own content via BitTorrent?

There's at least Blizzard that I noticed, I suppose others as well. The thing is that they don't advertise it - why would they? It's an implementation detail (built in their client). But I think of bittorrent legacy as way more than that. I'm not sure we would have had Spotify and Netflix without it. Sure, there are DRM, now. But music and movies are now affordable. Everybody wins, which is the desired end result.

Regarding ads, how could everybody win? There's one thing people made clear : they hate ads. So instead of fighting adblockers, ad industry should find a way to allow people to discover products without annoying them. For now, some prefer to fight adblockers with legal tools. We're entitled to answer with means just as aggressive, while still maintaining discussion channels with opposite side.