> but because they look at the entire network as a whole and conclude that it was this network that caused the rise in pirating, which is technically true.
But at the same time, ISPs were also profiting from the pirating (in fact, but this is beside the point, they were financially profiting, while the users were just getting movies).
In the case of IPFS, the ones running the infrastructure are not actually profiting directly from the distribution of content in their caches. I.e., the IPFS users are more "innocent" than ISPs in the BitTorrent case.
So if BigMedia wants to sue anybody, they should sue the ISPs, OR the people who placed data in the cache in the first place.
Finally, if this is all insurmountable, then there is still a solution. All users of IPFS transfer ownership of their harddrives (or parts thereof) to the IPFS foundation. That way, the users are not liable.
PS: With IPFS, users are at the same level as ISPs. So if users are getting sued, they can say "I'm an ISP, and I got my data from that ISP, sue them!"
This is why there has been a so-called "the great vertical integration" of the ISPs and content providers.
It's easy to understand if you take a look at what companies own or are owned by major ISP companies like Time Warner Cable, Comcast, etc.
Once you start digging deeper into how the Internet "actually" works, you quickly realize it's not as decentralized as we thought, and you become very pessimistic. But I do hope there's a solution for this, which is why I am a fan of people working on stuff like IPFS.
That said, if you really want to overthrow the current structure, you should really understand the history and why and how things work the way they do currently. Not just at a technical level but on economical level as well.
But at the same time, ISPs were also profiting from the pirating (in fact, but this is beside the point, they were financially profiting, while the users were just getting movies).
In the case of IPFS, the ones running the infrastructure are not actually profiting directly from the distribution of content in their caches. I.e., the IPFS users are more "innocent" than ISPs in the BitTorrent case.
So if BigMedia wants to sue anybody, they should sue the ISPs, OR the people who placed data in the cache in the first place.
Finally, if this is all insurmountable, then there is still a solution. All users of IPFS transfer ownership of their harddrives (or parts thereof) to the IPFS foundation. That way, the users are not liable.
PS: With IPFS, users are at the same level as ISPs. So if users are getting sued, they can say "I'm an ISP, and I got my data from that ISP, sue them!"