[bilegeek]

Why don't pirates switch to I2P? I know it's slow, but doesn't the speed go up the more high-bandwidth users and relay operators there are? Or am I missing something? Is it just inertia that's keeping everybody on non-I2P-routed BitTorrent?

[cookiengineer]

The issue I have with i2p is that it enforces all clients to be exit nodes, too. It makes the peer system stronger, but also legally vulnerable.

[update: this isn't true anymore, there's a config flag now available that fixes this and outproxy=false is defaulted. See [1]]

[1] https://geti2p.net/en/faq#exit

[brokenkebab]

The issue I have with i2p is that it enforces all clients to be exit nodes, too

This is not true. Seriously, you could at least read i2p faq before explaining other people how it works.

[MertsA]

This wasn't true in the past either. I2P would share bandwidth with other nodes, but not out to the public internet. It was always built as an anonymous network with various services hosted in it. Basically it's like a stripped down robust version of Tor that only has hidden services. HTTP proxies to the public internet are just a hidden service essentially. Unless you chose to set up one yourself it never just allowed random I2P nodes to proxy out to the public internet through your connection.

[fulafel]

Even if you were an exit node (see sibling), is this really so? Have eg Tor exit nodes been held legally responsible for eg copyright infringement? Sounds highly counterintuitive.

[jojobas]

They have in some countries.

https://network23.org/blackoutaustria/2014/07/01/to-whom-it-...

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2018/05/23/russia-finds-a-new-t...

[cookiengineer]

> Have eg Tor exit nodes been held legally responsible for eg copyright infringement? Sounds highly counterintuitive.

In Germany that's the case. Up until four years ago, it was legally impossible to offer free Wi-Fi for restaurants and other venues; and they now have to track at least every legal name of customers that use their Wi-Fi in order to not be held responsible as the Wi-Fi owner.

Technically they would have also to track a photo/ID of each customer if there weren't the GDPR/DSGVO in place that prevents that.

There's also still debate whether or not you have to have passwords in place in order to be not held responsible, which means that customers would have to "register a personal Wi-Fi account" as it's the case with city-provided Wi-Fi access points that are linked to your legal name and address.

That's what the EuGH decided with [1] and [2], the German Bundesgerichtshof before that decided that it's enough to track names only which led to the case being escalated to the European court by Sony Music.

[1] https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht...

[2] https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/201...