The case against Napster was ostensibly about copyright infringement. But IMHO it was really about the legacy US music recording cartel, defending their oligopoly power against the threats of decentralized distribution:

The case against LBRY is ostensibly about unregistered securities. But IMHO it's really about the legacy US datafarm cartel, defending their oligopoly power against the threat of decentralized streaming apps.

From the LBRY Inc. FAQ about the case:

* The SEC is not alleging fraud.
* LBRY Inc conducted no Initial Coin Offering (ICO).
* LBRY Inc did not breach any fiduciary duties.
* LBRY Inc at no time indicated that LBRY Credits were an investment, and consistently discouraged purchasing Credits for this purpose.
* LBRY Inc did not sell any tokens until after they could be used on a functional network, a previously stated key element by the SEC in how they assess token transactions.


If you've found any evidence of this, do you mind linking to it? As far as I can tell, this case is entirely about unregistered securities and poses no threat to any decentralized streaming platforms, including LBRY. Even LBRY seems to agree, as the FAQ says "The LBRY network is decentralized and not at risk... Even in an unlikely scenario in which LBRY Inc loses, the LBRY protocol will live on and work on it will continue."

Evidence no, it's just a hunch. IANAL but from the analysis at the page I linked, the attempt to paint LBRY tokens as securities doesn't hold water. Which suggests to me the prosecution has some other unstated purpose. YMMV

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!