You have the files. I don’t need to talk to W3F, because they don’t have them. I really don’t see why you can not just open them up. What should be a legal risk here?
7 Likes
I mean, should be obvious what risks I’ve carried all this time - especially if DOT continues to trend the way it is going. Regardless, I’m fine to honour CC agreement but W3F shut down funding of the repository. Speak to them - if they’re interested, they can reach out to me and arrange a solution.
1 Like
I still don’t see why this requires W3F to solve this situation? I get that you need funding to keep the archive alive. But you can also give the data to someone else (like me). If this process costs money, to e.g. bring back the archive for some time, I’m fine to pay for this.
4 Likes
I think what I’m reading is that I should put myself and the former Kus team at risk because… well that’s unclear.
W3F shut down The Kus and the funding for the archive without securing these assets. Reach out to them.
1 Like
Why are you taking yourself at risk? I don’t get it. We are talking about videos and not nuclear codes. You can also give me a private link or whatever is better for you.
11 Likes
It’s okay that you don’t get it. I’m sorry I can’t explain it to you.
1 Like
Yeah just sounds like you are making something up. Instead of just getting this solved. Sad to see this.
12 Likes
I’m sorry you feel that way but it isn’t so.
1 Like
Sounds like paid fudding.
5 Likes
haha 
1 Like
I also don’t see why the W3F foundation has to be involved. Those videos are not your intellectual property to withhold from the public. They are released under CC, they need to be redistributable. You already assumed the legal risk when you accepted the funding to create the content.
2 Likes
No no, risk is a calculation. That calculation is now much different. W3F shut down The Kus and they are also now stewards of the treasury. I am happy to speak with them about the issue if they reach out. 
1 Like
Who is the owner of the copyright?
2 Likes
@bill_w3f Could you please provide some insights on this?
2 Likes
Is there a legal avenue to report this person and have these actions reviewed?
3 Likes
I want to again recall the advice I’ve given to the community repeatedly in the past:
Now you know that this is not drama, but an important thing to do, a necessity.
In the not-distant future if the ecosystem continues to go downhill, we must even prepare that Parity/W3F themselves will go rogue (there’s already nerving signs of this in the recent censorship, and Parity leadership openly calling others “jerks”). For example, this forum may become permanently unavailable with years of discussions lost. It’s always important to save anything you think is important. Today it’s just Kurs videos, tomorrow it could be the Polkadot infrastructure itself. Hopefully Parity/W3F does not control more than 1/3 of any of the on-chain stuff (validators, collators, etc). Otherwise, even the network itself can be halted.
Still, I do want to note that @ChrawnnaCorp does not actually have a legal duty to make the videos available. Creative Commons (and any open source licenses) only grant rights when you already have the copy of the software binary. If you already have the Kurs videos, yes you are free to redistribute them and do all the things. But the original author is in no way obligated to continue hosting the videos. If no one saved the videos and the original author refuses to make them public again, then it’ll be lost forever.
To clarify a few points here:
- Web3 Foundation did not shut The Kusamarian down. We never ran or paid for the Kusamarian, nor even, as far as I know, ever had a contract with The Kusamarian or Jay on any topic.
- Nobody from the Kusamarian coordinated a transfer of assets to Web3 Foundation, nor was there ever any indication to W3F that the assets would be taken down.
The implications that Web3 Foundation somehow ordered the Kusamarian to be shut down, or that we were handed over assets, are incorrect. All work done by the Kusamarian was done through the Treasury, and thus, the implicit contract is between this team and the Polkadot DAO, i.e., all DOT holders.
15 Likes
Interesting points are being made here. I would suggest, from the best outcome of these topics for the future, to open a new forum thread with W3F’s legal team or Polkadot’s compliance team to assist from a professional legal perspective. Not necessarily on this case, but on general or hypothetical cases.
I was going to comment, but I need to recognize my ignorance on law matters, I primarily focus on anti-trust laws as that’s a core interest of mine.
Giving a second thought on my comment, I realize it is a horrible idea. Please disregard it.
But it opens the door to an important question, which are the legal terms of using a protocol ?
I suppose we start from the standpoint of considering national laws as the natural stem from which international laws should apply if advancing towards that direction.
I’m diverting from the clash, but that’s my intention: abstracting the problem to help on solving it.
The best course of action is to stop feeding the attention cycle here, at least temporarily, and delegate the issue to the legal teams. This is another expensive lesson in why everything needs to be decentralized. Going forward, any treasury-funded digital artifacts should be hosted, or least backed up, on decentralized storage systems. The community should strive for excellence, and not settle for subpar solutions. It might mean not having the full comfort of YouTube or other platforms, but the cost on display here is a justification of short-to-mid-term discomfort.
16 Likes