Not only are you a coward, but you forget what you wrote. I quote:
What's an ID? and What is this talk of "marking?" What the hell are you talking about?
These are your questions from your post. You did ask them, and it's not necessary to resort to name-calling because you can't remember your own posts.
You rambled at incomprehensible and mind-numbing length about the intricacies of a silly web site that nobody even bothers to use anyway
A dozen sentences is mind-numbing length? I guess you don't read much.
And which site would that be? The one which you've been following for about seven days and posted about as many times? Yep, nobody even bothers to use it.
Unfamiliar with the concept of the "bookmark," I guess.
How sad that you chose to bookmark this thread just so you can return here to anonymously and cowardly hurl obscenities at somebody you don't even know.
Whatever it takes for you to feel better about yourself, man.
I feel better about myself every time you post another name-calling diatribe. I feel better every time I hold out an olive branch and you respond by spouting more vitriol.
Coward.
(and again, that's not name-calling, that's fact.)
Sheesh. I try to help you out and you call me a shithead. You are a fine human being, as well as a coward.
And what's even sadder is that you have to seek this thread out to see if I've posted anything new. Whereas all I have to do is go to my subscription page and there it is. So you, a coward, have to take extra effort just to get to this thread and call me names. What a sad little coward!
Hmm. Interesting interpretation of "fact" you have there. Yet more evidence pointing toward your being an idiot.
No, sorry, but it's your intelligence that is put into question here. Maybe you're new here, but look just below the subject of the message you posted. See the "by Anonymous Coward"? That's you; an anonymous coward. That means you are a coward. Fact.
What's an ID?
Uh, seriously? IDentification aka login, username, handle, etc. You know, like mine; "computersareevil".
What is this talk of "marking?" What the hell are you talking about?
You must be new. Despite the fact that you've called me countless names, I'll help you. Start here: http://slashdot.org/faq/accounts.shtml
Once you are logged in, you'll see a gray sphere next to posts by other people who are signed in. If it's somebody you marked as a foe, you'll see red sphere, and you can ignore (or not) those posts.
And once you have a login/ID/whatever and stop posting as an anonymous coward, you will no longer be a coward.
That you are a coward. That's not name-calling, that's fact. Why don't you use your ID to post your messages? Because you are a coward. Clearly. At least if you used your ID I could mark you as a foe and be done with it.
Assuming you are the same anonymous coward who's been posting all along; I haven't engaged in any name-calling. You are posting as an anonymous coward, therefor I'm correctly calling you coward.
You can see from the string of messages I've never called anyone anything but coward, and that only because that is what they are: Anonymous cowards.
In contrast, I've been called a shithead, an idiot, and several other choice names here. I think I have the high ground here, coward.
Your problem--and other posters have pointed this out better than I could--is that you're a fucking idiot who thinks he should get everything he wants for free. That's your problem, right there. You know, just in case you were wondering.
At least I have the balls to post my opinions as myself, rather than as a name-calling coward.
I don't want everything for free; I'm always willing to pay for value delivered. But flipping a switch to turn on something already in my possession hardly seems like valued delivered.
It doesn't change the fact that what you described can be implemented today, with or without encrypted digital video.
I never said it couldn't. You still miss the point.
DRM helps us all. [...] Not possible without DRM. HD-DVD. Not possible without DRM.
I don't know what planet you live on. Media industries have flourished for far longer without DRM. It sounds like you bought into the RIAA's hype. DRM is always broken, and it is always a burden on the legitimate user.
You can be a luddite all you want
I'm the opposite. I'm an early adopter.
The fact remains: DRM is necessary.
Bullshit. It's never been necessary for media to succeed before, and it, I repeat, is ALWAYS defeated.
Furthermore, it's here. Now, we can either have convenient DRM, or we can have inconvenient DRM. Which would you prefer?
What planet are you from? I haven't seen "convenient" DRM yet. It's only "convenient" for those implementing the restrictions.
(Your ad hominem attacks are silly, also.)
Do you even know what that means? You're the one posting as a coward. And you're the one doing the name-calling (assuming you are the same coward). And nothing I said was without factual basis.
Well, yeah, I admit it does work in some situations. But it still feels like malingering to me.
You already have everything in your posession, so when they "turn on" additional features, I don't see how they are adding value to what is already in your possesion. I guess the real proof is that the market has generally rejected these kind of schemes. Again, they do appear to work in niche markets, and this is a free country. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.
You don't, actually. You have the right to make copies. There's no requirement that those copies be absolute bit-for-bit copies.
Maybe in a communist country, where the goverment has all the rights and grants them to the citizens as they see fit. But I live in a free nation, where the citizens have all the rights, and grant them to the government as they see fit. You are either from the former, or you have forgotten the latter. I have the right to make a copy, a perfect, bit-for-bit copy, for my own use. Not only because I'm a citizen of a free country, but because the Supreme Court explicity recognized that right.
Unless some encryption form makes it impossible for you to make copies AT ALL, there's no question of "rights."
If the encryption prevents me from using my property as I see fit, then my rights have been trampled. If I by a CD, don't I have the right to use that music on my Archos portable MP3 player? By your logic, I don't. The Supreme Court disagrees with you (but doesn't call you names).
And people who hide behind rhetoric of "rights" when all they really want is to pirate music and movies are incredibly lame.
I repeat: You are a coward. You are calling me a pirate and lame. You don't even know me, coward. But I know you are a coward because of your anonymous coward posting. I have an MP3 jukebox and a portable player, and the concept of not being able to use music I BUY and OWN as I see fit is reprehensible. DRM has NEVER worked, and NEVER been good for consumers.
NOTHING TO DO WITH ENCRYPTION, you fucking asshole.
Wrong again, coward. I'm talking about the monitor controlling what it can display. The license would have to come from computer, and would be encrypted. I'm sorry you are too much of a coward to grasp the concept.
If you want to believe a lie, knock yourself out, okay? But quit spreading it around. That just makes you look like a shithead
If you want to believe that DRM helps you, go right ahead and buy into it. When you can't use things you OWN the way YOU want to, you'll have only your cowardly self to blame.
"I've always found profanity to be refuge of the inarticulate motherfucker."
- Lord Byron as paraphrased by ry4an-slashdot@ry4an.org
Yes, of course, but it is laid on top of DVI. It is not part of the DVI spec. My impression is HDMI is DRM and recurring revenue masquerading as an interconnect standard.
DRM that restricts my fair use rights is illegal, doomed to failure, and just plain wrong. Haven't they learned anything from the software industry? Don't punish your paying customers!
The idea is to prevent you from attaching your video cable to a recording device and making perfect digital copies of whatever you can play on your screen.
I have EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO. Only idiots make their legitimate customers pay for the crimes of the criminals by committing criminal acts themselves. It is A CRIME to deprive me of my fair use rights.
It's got nothing to do with Windows, or display resolution.
Sure it does. Imagine a Microsoft 1500x1500 display with HDMI. Plug it into your computer, and it responds just as I said above. The display restricts you to 640x480 until you buy a "license" to use a higher resolution. That play is already in use on mainframes, test equipment, and other devices, and it's dirty business.
Yah, true, but it's just a joke. A little karma-whoring, I admit.
But I do see how HDMI could enable an unscrupulous scumbag^H^H^H^H^H^H^H companies to sell you a high-res screen, then sell you "licenses" to the different resolutions. Kinda like IBM does with crippled SMP mainframes. That kind of business is dishonest in my book.
Kinda like buying a V8 car with four plug wires unplugged and a locked hood. The dealer is demanding "licenses" to connect the other four and threatening you with the DMCA if you bust YOUR hood open to do it yourself. Scum.
HDMI is bad news for consumers as it incorporates Digital Restrictions Management (DRM).
"Windows has detected you want to connect a high resolution display to your computer. Your current Windows license doesn't allow displays over 1024x768. If you wish to upgrade, please insert appendage you wish to pay with..."
You still load 1x1 pixel gif files from tracking services. You still load css linked files from advertizing companies and you still load realmedia and flash which cross links advertisement
No, no, and NO! I specifically block and do not download any ads. Nor do I download any 1x1 gifs, linked files, or flash. Adblocker stops ALL OF THAT.
I even block scripts from most sites. So not only do I not see the ads, they can't tell that I'm reading their page without seeing the pop-up. And I don't show up in their tracking records.
I drive Grand Prix Legends backwards in pro mode. My goal it to wreck all the other cars while still remaining mobile. I love sending other cars spinning into the air in flames. HeeeeHeeeHAaaaHee. Is that wrong?
(which you are correct, this is way offtopic from IPv6 Success stories).
Touche.
I mean, take your argument and apply it to 20 years ago to banks and checking: No one will ever offer free checking at banks. It's a good revenue stream, and they won't give it up. [...] I couldn't find a bank that would charge me for anything as long as I kept $500 in a checking or savings account.
I'm afraid you have that completely backwards. Twenty years ago, you could get a checking account with no fees and no minimum balances. And they would give you a free toaster too! I know because I opened my first bank account just over 20 years ago at a savings and loan. Back then, banks and S&L's were BEGGING for business, and would do anything to get yours. Today, banks treat you like they don't want your money, demanding large account minimums ($500!), charging you for checks, and generally shafting you. So that argument is null and void.
Now, IP's are a scarce commodity right now (in the sense that they don't grow on trees), and they cost ISP's money. They have a right to pass that charge along (they could alternatively, just raise everyone's price $2 per month, and let you have up to 3 of them, because most people would never use them). It costs a lot of money to do the paperwork, to keep up the paperwork, and to pay the fees associated with getting a/20 (which is the smallest block you can get them in from ARIN). The first ISP that figures out that by offering customers 10,000 static IP's to do what they will with and gains market share, and makes more money, will drive everyone else to do it. That's capitalism for you.
Not to flame you, but you contradict yourself in that paragraph. you say that nobody would use static IP's, but they are scarce? And there is market to be gained by offering people 10,000 of something they don't understand and will never use? That doesn't compute.
I'd bet money you'd be willing to change ISP's if they just gave you 1,000 IP's for free with your $40 a month account.
I pine for the day. In truth, I hope you are right and I am wrong.
Unfortunately, I think I'm right. I'll offer another example: Long distance. There's no way the costs of delivering long distance service have gone up, yet the prices have been rising for the last ten years. Eight years ago I had $0.05/minute anytime with no monthly fee and no minimums. You can't find that today (not counting VoIP).
The market isn't always dictated by scarcity. Particulary not technological markets. It's driven by perceived value. BECAUSE most people will never use or even understand static IP's, they will always have a higher perceived value to those that do. Thus, you and I will always be willing to pay for them, and therefor always will have to pay for them.
That's all well and good, but -1, offtopic because you missed my point:
IPv6 isn't going to eliminate NAT or be widely and quickly adopted because the ISP's are not going to allow you to have as many IP's as you can use simply because they will never run out.
They will not give us a revenue stream just because technology has solved the problem that created the revenue stream.
When the ISPs start to use it, then they can give each customer a block of 1000 static IPs...and then you will have to figure out what you are going to use 1000 static addresses for...
For each of which they will charge you $5 per month. Don't think that they won't because they are "plentiful". Look how much you are paying for cable/satellite; a luxury item with no scarcity and basically zero-cost to add a customer.
Sorry, NAT's not going away until ISP's stop treating us like consumers. (At least not from MY house. I'd be paying $50/month for IP's alone!)
You've still missed the point. Even if they set up a honeypot and you connect, they have NO WAY to tell if you are requesting the file, or merely passing through a request from another node.
The part about whether or not you can get in trouble by running a node has been addresses by Freenet in their FAQ:
Is Freenet legal? If by legal you mean not illegal, then yes it is. Of course, anything can be found to be illegal at some point in the future, and the law can be an ass sometimes, so we can make no guarantee about Freenet's future legality.
Can I get trouble if I run a node? This is related to the previous question. We have done everything we can to make it extremely difficult for any sane legal system to justify punishing someone for running a Freenet node, and there is little precedent for such action in today's developed countries. Many legal systems recognise the importance of freedom of speech, which is Freenet's core goal. Having said that, there is risk in doing anything that your government might not agree with; you should make an informed decision as to whether to take that risk.
Though I do agree that MUTE should tone-down it's anti-RIAA rhetoric or face being labelled strictly as a "network primarily used for copyright infringement", when in fact it is just a secure file-sharing tool. But then morons and governments always like to outlaw tools rather than outlawing behaviour.
By your logic, Freenet is completely invalid and illegal too, right? Anybody running a Freenet node knows they are running a Freenet node, and so they are responsible for anything you can download from them?
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody asked you for help, you arrogant asshole.
Not only are you a coward, but you forget what you wrote. I quote:
What's an ID?
and
What is this talk of "marking?" What the hell are you talking about?
These are your questions from your post. You did ask them, and it's not necessary to resort to name-calling because you can't remember your own posts.
You rambled at incomprehensible and mind-numbing length about the intricacies of a silly web site that nobody even bothers to use anyway
A dozen sentences is mind-numbing length? I guess you don't read much.
And which site would that be? The one which you've been following for about seven days and posted about as many times? Yep, nobody even bothers to use it.
Unfamiliar with the concept of the "bookmark," I guess.
How sad that you chose to bookmark this thread just so you can return here to anonymously and cowardly hurl obscenities at somebody you don't even know.
Whatever it takes for you to feel better about yourself, man.
I feel better about myself every time you post another name-calling diatribe. I feel better every time I hold out an olive branch and you respond by spouting more vitriol.
Coward.
(and again, that's not name-calling, that's fact.)
Wow. What a complete shithead.
Sheesh. I try to help you out and you call me a shithead. You are a fine human being, as well as a coward.
And what's even sadder is that you have to seek this thread out to see if I've posted anything new. Whereas all I have to do is go to my subscription page and there it is. So you, a coward, have to take extra effort just to get to this thread and call me names. What a sad little coward!
Hmm. Interesting interpretation of "fact" you have there. Yet more evidence pointing toward your being an idiot.
;)
No, sorry, but it's your intelligence that is put into question here. Maybe you're new here, but look just below the subject of the message you posted. See the "by Anonymous Coward"? That's you; an anonymous coward. That means you are a coward. Fact.
What's an ID?
Uh, seriously? IDentification aka login, username, handle, etc. You know, like mine; "computersareevil".
What is this talk of "marking?" What the hell are you talking about?
You must be new. Despite the fact that you've called me countless names, I'll help you. Start here: http://slashdot.org/faq/accounts.shtml
Once you are logged in, you'll see a gray sphere next to posts by other people who are signed in. If it's somebody you marked as a foe, you'll see red sphere, and you can ignore (or not) those posts.
And once you have a login/ID/whatever and stop posting as an anonymous coward, you will no longer be a coward.
Now, stop calling me names, coward!
That you are a coward. That's not name-calling, that's fact. Why don't you use your ID to post your messages? Because you are a coward. Clearly. At least if you used your ID I could mark you as a foe and be done with it.
And yet, you are still an anonymous coward.
Assuming you are the same anonymous coward who's been posting all along; I haven't engaged in any name-calling. You are posting as an anonymous coward, therefor I'm correctly calling you coward.
You can see from the string of messages I've never called anyone anything but coward, and that only because that is what they are: Anonymous cowards.
In contrast, I've been called a shithead, an idiot, and several other choice names here. I think I have the high ground here, coward.
Still a coward. No wonder you like DRM: You're too afraid to stand behind what you say, coward.
Skynet gave me that name, thank you very much.
Your problem--and other posters have pointed this out better than I could--is that you're a fucking idiot who thinks he should get everything he wants for free. That's your problem, right there. You know, just in case you were wondering.
At least I have the balls to post my opinions as myself, rather than as a name-calling coward.
I don't want everything for free; I'm always willing to pay for value delivered. But flipping a switch to turn on something already in my possession hardly seems like valued delivered.
It doesn't change the fact that what you described can be implemented today, with or without encrypted digital video.
I never said it couldn't. You still miss the point.
DRM helps us all. [...] Not possible without DRM. HD-DVD. Not possible without DRM.
I don't know what planet you live on. Media industries have flourished for far longer without DRM. It sounds like you bought into the RIAA's hype. DRM is always broken, and it is always a burden on the legitimate user.
You can be a luddite all you want
I'm the opposite. I'm an early adopter.
The fact remains: DRM is necessary.
Bullshit. It's never been necessary for media to succeed before, and it, I repeat, is ALWAYS defeated.
Furthermore, it's here. Now, we can either have convenient DRM, or we can have inconvenient DRM. Which would you prefer?
What planet are you from? I haven't seen "convenient" DRM yet. It's only "convenient" for those implementing the restrictions.
(Your ad hominem attacks are silly, also.)
Do you even know what that means? You're the one posting as a coward. And you're the one doing the name-calling (assuming you are the same coward). And nothing I said was without factual basis.
Well, yeah, I admit it does work in some situations. But it still feels like malingering to me.
You already have everything in your posession, so when they "turn on" additional features, I don't see how they are adding value to what is already in your possesion. I guess the real proof is that the market has generally rejected these kind of schemes. Again, they do appear to work in niche markets, and this is a free country. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.
You, sir, are a COWARD.
You don't, actually. You have the right to make copies. There's no requirement that those copies be absolute bit-for-bit copies.
Maybe in a communist country, where the goverment has all the rights and grants them to the citizens as they see fit. But I live in a free nation, where the citizens have all the rights, and grant them to the government as they see fit. You are either from the former, or you have forgotten the latter. I have the right to make a copy, a perfect, bit-for-bit copy, for my own use. Not only because I'm a citizen of a free country, but because the Supreme Court explicity recognized that right.
Unless some encryption form makes it impossible for you to make copies AT ALL, there's no question of "rights."
If the encryption prevents me from using my property as I see fit, then my rights have been trampled. If I by a CD, don't I have the right to use that music on my Archos portable MP3 player? By your logic, I don't. The Supreme Court disagrees with you (but doesn't call you names).
And people who hide behind rhetoric of "rights" when all they really want is to pirate music and movies are incredibly lame.
I repeat: You are a coward. You are calling me a pirate and lame. You don't even know me, coward. But I know you are a coward because of your anonymous coward posting. I have an MP3 jukebox and a portable player, and the concept of not being able to use music I BUY and OWN as I see fit is reprehensible. DRM has NEVER worked, and NEVER been good for consumers.
NOTHING TO DO WITH ENCRYPTION, you fucking asshole.
Wrong again, coward. I'm talking about the monitor controlling what it can display. The license would have to come from computer, and would be encrypted. I'm sorry you are too much of a coward to grasp the concept.
If you want to believe a lie, knock yourself out, okay? But quit spreading it around. That just makes you look like a shithead
If you want to believe that DRM helps you, go right ahead and buy into it. When you can't use things you OWN the way YOU want to, you'll have only your cowardly self to blame.
"I've always found profanity to be refuge of the inarticulate motherfucker."
- Lord Byron as paraphrased by ry4an-slashdot@ry4an.org
What, have you never head of HDCP before?
Yes, of course, but it is laid on top of DVI. It is not part of the DVI spec. My impression is HDMI is DRM and recurring revenue masquerading as an interconnect standard.
DRM that restricts my fair use rights is illegal, doomed to failure, and just plain wrong. Haven't they learned anything from the software industry? Don't punish your paying customers!
oh, and P.S. YOU COWARD!
Encrypted video cables make perfect sense.
Only if you work for the MPAA or Sony.
The idea is to prevent you from attaching your video cable to a recording device and making perfect digital copies of whatever you can play on your screen.
I have EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO . Only idiots make their legitimate customers pay for the crimes of the criminals by committing criminal acts themselves. It is A CRIME to deprive me of my fair use rights.
It's got nothing to do with Windows, or display resolution.
Sure it does. Imagine a Microsoft 1500x1500 display with HDMI. Plug it into your computer, and it responds just as I said above. The display restricts you to 640x480 until you buy a "license" to use a higher resolution. That play is already in use on mainframes, test equipment, and other devices, and it's dirty business.
Yah, true, but it's just a joke. A little karma-whoring, I admit.
But I do see how HDMI could enable an unscrupulous scumbag^H^H^H^H^H^H^H companies to sell you a high-res screen, then sell you "licenses" to the different resolutions. Kinda like IBM does with crippled SMP mainframes. That kind of business is dishonest in my book.
Kinda like buying a V8 car with four plug wires unplugged and a locked hood. The dealer is demanding "licenses" to connect the other four and threatening you with the DMCA if you bust YOUR hood open to do it yourself. Scum.
Guess what? So does DVI.
DVI does NOT. HDCP, which is on top of DVI, does.
HDMI is bad news for consumers as it incorporates Digital Restrictions Management (DRM).
"Windows has detected you want to connect a high resolution display to your computer. Your current Windows license doesn't allow displays over 1024x768. If you wish to upgrade, please insert appendage you wish to pay with..."
You still load 1x1 pixel gif files from tracking services. You still load css linked files from advertizing companies and you still load realmedia and flash which cross links advertisement
No, no, and NO! I specifically block and do not download any ads. Nor do I download any 1x1 gifs, linked files, or flash. Adblocker stops ALL OF THAT.
I even block scripts from most sites. So not only do I not see the ads, they can't tell that I'm reading their page without seeing the pop-up. And I don't show up in their tracking records.
Courtesy of Mozilla Firebird and the Adblocker extension, I NEVER EVER see any ads. I love destroying business models.
I drive Grand Prix Legends backwards in pro mode. My goal it to wreck all the other cars while still remaining mobile. I love sending other cars spinning into the air in flames. HeeeeHeeeHAaaaHee. Is that wrong?
(which you are correct, this is way offtopic from IPv6 Success stories).
/20 (which is the smallest block you can get them in from ARIN). The first ISP that figures out that by offering customers 10,000 static IP's to do what they will with and gains market share, and makes more money, will drive everyone else to do it. That's capitalism for you.
Touche.
I mean, take your argument and apply it to 20 years ago to banks and checking: No one will ever offer free checking at banks. It's a good revenue stream, and they won't give it up. [...] I couldn't find a bank that would charge me for anything as long as I kept $500 in a checking or savings account.
I'm afraid you have that completely backwards. Twenty years ago, you could get a checking account with no fees and no minimum balances. And they would give you a free toaster too! I know because I opened my first bank account just over 20 years ago at a savings and loan. Back then, banks and S&L's were BEGGING for business, and would do anything to get yours. Today, banks treat you like they don't want your money, demanding large account minimums ($500!), charging you for checks, and generally shafting you. So that argument is null and void.
Now, IP's are a scarce commodity right now (in the sense that they don't grow on trees), and they cost ISP's money. They have a right to pass that charge along (they could alternatively, just raise everyone's price $2 per month, and let you have up to 3 of them, because most people would never use them). It costs a lot of money to do the paperwork, to keep up the paperwork, and to pay the fees associated with getting a
Not to flame you, but you contradict yourself in that paragraph. you say that nobody would use static IP's, but they are scarce? And there is market to be gained by offering people 10,000 of something they don't understand and will never use? That doesn't compute.
I'd bet money you'd be willing to change ISP's if they just gave you 1,000 IP's for free with your $40 a month account.
I pine for the day. In truth, I hope you are right and I am wrong.
Unfortunately, I think I'm right. I'll offer another example: Long distance. There's no way the costs of delivering long distance service have gone up, yet the prices have been rising for the last ten years. Eight years ago I had $0.05/minute anytime with no monthly fee and no minimums. You can't find that today (not counting VoIP).
The market isn't always dictated by scarcity. Particulary not technological markets. It's driven by perceived value. BECAUSE most people will never use or even understand static IP's, they will always have a higher perceived value to those that do. Thus, you and I will always be willing to pay for them, and therefor always will have to pay for them.
That's all well and good, but -1, offtopic because you missed my point:
IPv6 isn't going to eliminate NAT or be widely and quickly adopted because the ISP's are not going to allow you to have as many IP's as you can use simply because they will never run out.
They will not give us a revenue stream just because technology has solved the problem that created the revenue stream.
When the ISPs start to use it, then they can give each customer a block of 1000 static IPs...and then you will have to figure out what you are going to use 1000 static addresses for...
For each of which they will charge you $5 per month. Don't think that they won't because they are "plentiful". Look how much you are paying for cable/satellite; a luxury item with no scarcity and basically zero-cost to add a customer.
Sorry, NAT's not going away until ISP's stop treating us like consumers. (At least not from MY house. I'd be paying $50/month for IP's alone!)
no.sig.is.good.sig.
You've still missed the point. Even if they set up a honeypot and you connect, they have NO WAY to tell if you are requesting the file, or merely passing through a request from another node.
The part about whether or not you can get in trouble by running a node has been addresses by Freenet in their FAQ:
Is Freenet legal?
If by legal you mean not illegal, then yes it is. Of course, anything can be found to be illegal at some point in the future, and the law can be an ass sometimes, so we can make no guarantee about Freenet's future legality.
Can I get trouble if I run a node?
This is related to the previous question. We have done everything we can to make it extremely difficult for any sane legal system to justify punishing someone for running a Freenet node, and there is little precedent for such action in today's developed countries. Many legal systems recognise the importance of freedom of speech, which is Freenet's core goal. Having said that, there is risk in doing anything that your government might not agree with; you should make an informed decision as to whether to take that risk.
Though I do agree that MUTE should tone-down it's anti-RIAA rhetoric or face being labelled strictly as a "network primarily used for copyright infringement", when in fact it is just a secure file-sharing tool. But then morons and governments always like to outlaw tools rather than outlawing behaviour.
By your logic, Freenet is completely invalid and illegal too, right? Anybody running a Freenet node knows they are running a Freenet node, and so they are responsible for anything you can download from them?