Activist
Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions: yes; no

Academic*
Article follows conventions of academic research article — e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution: yes; yes

Prospective
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred: yes; no

Formalised
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique: no; no

Language quality*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent: yes; yes

Scope of debate
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated: yes; yes

Comprehensiveness*
Most related sources are mentioned in article [this is an invitation to careful selection rather than a demonstration of prowess in citation collection — i.e. apt and representative choices made in source citations]: yes/no; yes

Logical flow*
Ideas are well organised in article: yes; yes

Originality*
The argument presented in article is new: yes; yes

Review impact
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: yes; no

Reviewer A: The article has been amended slightly to address the review comments, and in that revision more clearly identifies its focus, and clearly problematizes the challenges of p2p technologies within contemporary legal discourses.

Reviewer B: I find the manuscript very interesting and original. It displays a good understanding of the described problem and offers a creative solution to the raised issues. It is well researched, properly organised and attractive for the reader. It could be perceived as the important step in the emerging process that aims at importing some concepts and theories from international law (e.g.: rights of local communities) to private cyber law, for the benefit of both legal fields