Thank you! I think that's a great idea, and will definitely look into implementing this.

I would just like to add some cautionary anec-data: there are widespread cases in certain jurisdictions where rightsholders are known to seed the same torrents themselves, just to turn around and send love letters to leechers that connect to them. A good example is Germany with movies and TV shows.

Now, I don't know if, say, Wolters Kluver would/does the same thing, and what the realistic risk of an individual receiving such a letter is, but I think it makes it worthwhile to go over the actual law in your jurisdiction before diving head first on things like this.

I'm not saying it's wrong to seed these things, I'm just saying it might be a good idea to weigh the risks if you don't have a cool 500€ in cash to part ways with.

If anything the culture of the last 30 years has made people dismissive and stupid about copyright — and no one has been more obtuse than an average tech libertarian.

You can spot the worst by really thoughtless ideas like “it’s so easy to make cheap copies now so that means copyright is obsolete!” which is laughably common in tech and tech influenced spaces, but shows a total lack of reflection on the topic - copyright was created as a thoughtful attempt to rebalance incentives in a time when industrialization made copies cheap. Cheap copies made copyright important! Cheaper copies - or fractal remixes - might make it more important.

And it’s copyright proponents who know more than most that it’s not a law of nature but a prosocial bargain that has to be maintained by a prosocial people.

If you’re more “the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must,” if you’re more “eh, thinking through the incentives balance is hard” or “incentives don’t matter now that AI can do all the progress in the arts and sciences we need”, then yeah, copyright may not make sense, but don’t pretend that the problem is that its proponents just can’t conceive of anything else.