Newzbin Usenet Indexer Liable For Copyright Infringement 168
An anonymous reader writes "The world's most popular Usenet indexing site, Newzbin, has been trounced in London's High Court by the movie studios. Held liable for the infringements of its users, later this week Newzbin will be subjected to an injunction which will force it to filter out illegal copies of movies from its NZB index. From the article: 'Newzbin’s help guides were referred to in the decision. They state that the site can help people find what they're looking for, "whether that be obscure music, tv shows, games or movies. Think of us as a TV guide, but we're a guide that applies to Usenet." ... Newzbin has members called "editors" who help to compile reports on material to be found on Usenet. Newzbin's own documentation was used to show that the site encouraged editors to post links to movies. The verdict notes that to assist editors useful links to IMDb and VCDQuality are provided, the latter being useful to provide information about "screeners."'"
Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to migrate to a new protocol. What's next, FTP?
Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (Score:5, Funny)
Gopher!
Re: (Score:1)
A return to Gopher would be an improvement for a good portion of the HTML space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible to make websites act as fast as gopher, if you strip away all the garbage and focus on plain text plus maybe 1 or 2 GIF ads (to pay the bills).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah back in the day when I saw a web browser for the first time and how SLOW it was, I laughed and predicted gopher would rule the known universe. Not one of my finer moments ....
Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, SFTP, right??
Those who download copyrighted content via NNTP are simply hiding by obscurity. Most of the public doesn't know about NNTP nor is it a "simple" (simple as in guntella, .torrent) method of file sharing. I personally believe that the RIAA/MPAA went after the wrong protocol by attacking torrent and P2P networks when all along those who "know" know that if you want to kill the beast you need to cut off the head (or in this case, the backbone). NNTP also allows for advanced encryption schemes and large amounts of bandwidth. It's a pirate's haven.
The issue with attacking NNTP has been that those who run NNTP services don't control the content whatsoever. They aren't held responsible for what's uploaded to their servers, and I think this is a fundamental issue with regarding net-neutrality.
Usenet is sort of a micro-chasm of the entire internet. Servers host files and peers download and upload data as needed. The servers, in this case, represent the free internet. Unregulated. This is the beginning of effective attempts by the RIAA/MPAA to get their proverbial hands into the Usenet system and restrict it. They'll start on the outside and work their way in to core services, all in the name of protecting "American IP" (read: profits).
Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (Score:5, Interesting)
What? NNTP servers store the content, while bittorrent servers (both the torrent files repositories and the trackers) never do. In fact, if you decouple the .torrent file sharing from the tracker, you can have trackers that know nothing about the content, not even the torrent name (only some hashes) [openbittorrent.com], or even trackerless torrents [lifehacker.com].
Bittorrent is much harder to stop; the only way to do it is to convince each ISP to implement DPI filters and play cat and mouse with the developers of bittorrent clients, and it'll only end if they basically turn the Internet into TV 2.0.
Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, with usenet only the uploaders are really committing a serious infringement (and even then only once).
The downloaders are pretty much clean (from serious trouble).
In what we call P2P sharing, the down-loaders are also uploading multiple copies too, causing them to be easy to sue seriously.
It is much easier to pick on the littlest guys (end users), and P2P let them do that.
Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (Score:5, Interesting)
In what we call P2P sharing, the down-loaders are also uploading multiple copies too, causing them to be easy to sue seriously.
But can you prove that in court? If you send someone 99.9% of a torrent will they be able to watch the movie? If it's rared they won't even be able to open it.
You didn't make a copy. Oh you copied part of it? How does that work without making use of the digit 1 infringement against every copyrighted work ever?
With BT style P2P it's possible to never send anyone the full work. This includes the original seeder. How have you made a copy at that point?
It's a legal loophole. No one makes a copy yet everyone ends up with a copy. There's no law against possession of an illegally made copy the only crime is illegally making a copy.
This is why they had to create the secondary crime of contributing to or accessory to copyright infringement.
Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (Score:5, Insightful)
You believe you can circumvent the law by technical means. It doesn't work like that. Copying part of a work isn't a defence; you're still trying to share it.
Re: (Score:2)
copying part of something is a defense, like almost hitting someone but pulling the punch at the last second, its not a punch until it lands, just wind. The crime it the completion of the act, without that you have not act to be a crime. Its true in full acknowledgement of that, attempted murder is a seperate crime with a seperate schedule of punishments. I don't think they have made attempted copyright infringment a crime as yet.
Re: (Score:2)
"First: If copying part of a work isn't a defense then your post is infringement as it is partially a copy of copyright protected material."
No, his quoting of your post falls well within fair use doctrine. Slashdotters like to make fair use doctrine into something that it's not, but this is an instance where it definitely applies. Seriously -- everybody should understand this.
As others have pointed out, people with a basic understanding of the law tend to imagine there are loopholes where there aren't. Co
Re: (Score:2)
"That's a complete change of subject. I never said anything about fair use. We are talking about partial copy."
Right -- you claimed his quoting your post was infringement; I pointed out that this would actually fall under fair use doctrine in this instance. You're correct that it was not you who brought up fair use -- I did.
Specifically at what point does the random gibberish of a partial copy turn into a "work."
That's generally for the courts to decide. It's not as cut-and-dry as saying that you may d
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a copy, because I wrote it myself. Copyright law is smarter than that. If you do dd if=/dev/urandom of=avatar.mkv, that is NOT a copy of Avatar. Not even if it happens to be bit-for-bit identical to another avatar.mkv which was generated directly from the movie master. The first avatar.mkv can be freely distributed, and you can't even get copyright on it because there was no creative process involved.
Re: (Score:2)
it's not a legal loophole.
If I'm a publisher and I only print half of some book and sell it without permission from the copyright holder I'm still fucking with their copyright.
Yes yes 1 bit is not infringement but 20 pages certainly is and if I'm getting a book off bittorrent chances are I'll upload a decent portion of the book while I'm downloading it.
It's the same silliness where people claim it isn't infringing if you send someone an encrypted copyrighted work since without the password it's useless. etc
Re: (Score:2)
What's the lower bound on that?
Larger than a bit, smaller than the entire work; if it's truly a borderline case, the jury gets to decide.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to the degree that you seem to be asking for. There is no exact percentage or number of characters/bytes that forms an exact legal boundary. It's judged on a case-by-case basis. A whole lot of law is based on the concept of what a "reasonable person" (e.g. a jury member) would conclude.
Re: (Score:2)
The term in English & Welsh law is "substantial":
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_10 [opsi.gov.uk]
It isn't an exact percentage, because the law is designed to be interpreted on a case by case basis.
A discussion of "different types of substantial" which might be worth a read is here:
http://www.ipit-update.com/copy15.htm [ipit-update.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"It's a legal loophole."
The courts would have to not punish people for it to actually be a loophole.
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA goes after bearshare and limewire users. The big BT cases have been against trackers. Using laws custom written to target them.
Please cite a case against a BT user.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't make a copy. Oh you copied part of it? How does that work without making use of the digit 1 infringement against every copyrighted work ever?
Ooh, I like your logic. Lets try that in syllogistic format:
An individual bit is a subset of a digital work;
Individual bits are not subject to copyright,
Therefore, all subsets of digital works are not subject to copyright.
Wow, if only I'd realized that all members of a set must be identical, it would have made my logic classes so much easier.
Horses eat hay;
Horses are mammals,
Therefore, all mammals eat hay.
I'm going to save a lot of money on catfood! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Those are your conclusions not mine. They illustrate your logic and position not mine.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to copy an entire work to infringe copyright, and your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that you do.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think the digit 1 infringes all copyright protected works because it's a partial copy?
Re: (Score:2)
No, of course not. I live in the real world, and here we have shades other than black and white. Remarkably, trained lawyers and experienced judges are even capable of perceiving them.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of a work is still a derived work.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically at 0.0000000000000001% they have something watchable even if it's only a single part of a single frame.
Again I ask at what point is less than 100% equal to 100%? At what point is that string of gibberish an illegally made copy?
What's the lower bound? If there is a lower bound what happens if the file is posted in x parts each smaller than the lower bound? Maybe encoded such that they don't use any binary characters. Sorry had to throw that in.
Re: (Score:2)
Intent only matters if it's written into the law. That's how law works. That's how law is exploited. That's how guilty people go free and innocent people are locked up. Justice is blind and all that.
For you yanks it's title 17 Chapter 1 Sections 107-122. In chaper 1 alone there's more law on what isn't a copy than what is a copy. Based on the fact that more time is spent on partial copies the intent of the law is obviously that this is an important section. The intent is to have some lower bounds on
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the cut off point for fair use is generally considered 10%. If you copy/distribute/include in your own work more then that you are violating the copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you please cite a case or piece of law?
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, copyright infringement can apply even if you haven't made a complete copy. Getting pedantic about percentages is pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
If they store it, how can you say they don't control it?
If you mean they can't be persecuted legally because it's all automatic and they don't manually accept the files, that's absurd because TPB didn't manage the files manually either, nor did they store the content, and yet they were convicted for it.
Since they actually control and store the content (while they may not manage it manually), they'll have to take it down if they get DMCA emails, or can be prosecuted on any European country for illegal distri
Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with the protocol. Newzbin are an indexing site; one of many. In their case, they provided a commercial service for hand-categorized nzbs, which are pretty analogous to .torrent files, from a legal point of view at least. That they had categories labelled up for 'screener', 'R5', 'Warez' etc etc along with the documentation explicitly advising editors how to post infringing material.
What's interesting is that they've not been threatened with shut down or massive fines yet, unlike the pirate bay; as far as I'm aware, contributory infringement [chillingeffects.org] is illegal in the UK.
So while Newsbin's nzb files will live on as the standard method of collating binary files on usenet, the site itself is destined to be filtered into 'uselessness' (see mininova) even if it isn't shut down with a followup judgement. I expect a number of other indexing sites to spring up, and a number of the existing ones to grow larger - probably hosted in countries that aren't quite so pro-copyright holders as the UK, especially if they don't have contributory copyright infringement laws common in the US and western Europe.
Two thoughts spring to mind;
1) will they get a copy of users search history (complete with creditcard logs linking them to the account)? (and no, I've never been a member)
2) when do they start going after the usenet providers themselves?
Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (Score:5, Informative)
1) will they get a copy of users search history (complete with creditcard logs linking them to the account)? (and no, I've never been a member)
This was posted on Newzbin a while back:
Server logs and user activity Some subscribers are a little concerned about privacy in the light of the current litigation so to put their minds at rest we thought we would explain what the privacy implications are of our logs. We are currently keeping webserver logs for a period which is sufficient to allow us to defend ourselves against web attacks. However we cannot tell from our logs what NZBs you have downloaded. At all. If we can't do this then neither can any complainant with access to our logs. Furthermore we rotate old logs so that they are deleted. No request has been made for our logs during the discovery phase of litigation and due to the nature of the legal process that request would have to have been made a long time ago: it wasn't. They cannot now, legally, have it; and moreover they dont actually seem that interested either. The fact is this: they are gunning for Newzbin not you. Bottom line: We cannot tell anyone what NZBs you have been using whether those are for Linux distros, porn or just embarrassing lawful material. Don't worry.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
See my post below - afaik this judgement applies only to movies that MPA members hold the copyright to and not to other movies or, indeed, other media.
Re: (Score:2)
Newzbin are an indexing site; one of many.
Worth pointing out that some of the larger usenet providers also index their content and make it available for searches. Hell, even the makers of Newsbin (the client program of a similar name) does it and sells it to customers for a $5/month.
I guess Rule No. 1 for usenet providers is don't base your business model on a tarted-up search. For everyone else, terrabytes of "data" will continue to be posted to usenet on a daily basis. Finding what you want may be a li
Re: (Score:2)
1) will they get a copy of users search history (complete with creditcard logs linking them to the account)? (and no, I've never been a member)
2) when do they start going after the usenet providers themselves?
Yes ( and i bet its grounds for warrants to search your home/pc ), and looks like they are heading that direction now.
Gotta love getting in hot water decades later for doing something that was legal.. "you used usenet... that makes you a pirate"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
... [sourceforge.net]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then I can store the movies on my media server and stream them to any PC in the house? And take them with me on a laptop drive when I travel? Transcode for PSP?
Oh wait, ripping and encoding tools are also illegal because they bypass anti-circumvention methods.
There is a better product available from the pirates, money or no. Hell in the past I've both downloaded and bought movies (Futurama, for instance) because I wanted to pay but also wanted the convenience of having an unrestricted electronic copy, o
Re: (Score:2)
But that would actually cost them money which is something they are willing to do. And just because Newzbin makes a profit doesn't mean their business is legit hell the guy selling stolen property on the street corner is making a profit too.
Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (Score:4, Insightful)
The protocol isn't the problem. The problem is someone profiting from the online availability of "infringing" material. It's very difficult to portray yourself as a "content-agnostic" search engine merely enabling users to share files when you're turning over £1 million a year.
What I find a little unsettling is the judge's critcism of Newzbin's takedown procedures. From TFA:
Newzbin was also criticized for its “delisting” or notice and takedown procedures, which were referred to as a “cosmetic” and “cumbersome” mechanism designed to “render it impractical” for rights holders to have material removed.
While I have no personal knowledge of how "cumbersome" the procedure is, I don't see why it shouldn't be "cumbersome". If an alleged rights-holder wants his alleged material removed from the index, why shouldn't he have to jump through a few hoops? Why shouldn't the alleged rights-holder have to prove definitively that he owns the rights he claims? If the takedown procedure were too streamlined and gave the alleged rights-holder too much benefit of the doubt we could end up with a situation where any tom dick or harry could make malicious complaints about content they don't own just to cause trouble for the site. I can't just point at any car I like the look of, say "that's mine" and get the police to drag the driver out through the window.
It has begun (Score:1, Interesting)
Intent (Score:3, Interesting)
http://home.netcom.com/~cowdery/maxwell/mamoser.html [netcom.com]
In this case, Usenet contains what I affectionately call a "Rared Sale" (get it?) - where everything is less than a quarter. In fact, it's free! And as long as we all remember the First Rule of Usenet: Nobody talks about Usenet, then it's all fine. Apparently, these blokes forgot that rule.
Re: (Score:2)
If Isohunt disappears, where can I go to find my NapisyPL tv show rips?
Back to article - No need to kill Usenet. Just go back to the old system of sharing information directly from one sysop's computer to another sysop's computer, and then have the info filtered downward to the local users' computers.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Newzbin -is- actively helping. They have 'editors' that go through the raw data and form indexed downloads manually and filter out serial numbers.
I'm not condemning the service, just saying that it's not 100% passive like Google or isoHunt.
Re: (Score:2)
My mistake, then. I assume it was an engine that worked like Google.
was only a matter of time.. (Score:1)
I could take my house off of every map in existence.. and you'll still be able to find my house if you've been there.
If you don't going to go after illegal content, go after ILLEGAL CONTENT! If the content is there it will be found.. no matter how many signs and arrows to it you remove.
Here we go again..
Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie downloads? (Score:1)
Just because it's a movie doesn't mean the MPAA owns it. Did the help guides specifically say they help you find MPAA owned/copyrighted movies, or just movies in general? I'd hate to think the whole world has forgotten that a "movie" itself is an art form, not just an MPAA dropping subject to fees and copyrights.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because it's a movie doesn't mean the MPAA owns it.
The MPAA is a trade association. It doesn't "own" anything." Members are drawn form the "big six" studios"
20th Century Fox
Walt Disney
Sony Pictures
Paramount (Viacom)
Universal
Warner
But you'll most likely discover the independent studio has signed on to the MPAA's rating and title registration services. You can't copyright a title, but you can protect it by contract.
Re: (Score:2)
All of these responses are invalid. This has to do with the fact that Usenet indexing services are agnostic to the content being indexed (I.E. They are not biased toward copyrighted material vs. non-copyrighted material).
Re: (Score:2)
So they are invalid because it points out for all to see the huge whole in your argument? Besides, anyone who has been to Newzbin can clearly see that there is a huge bias towards indexing copyrighted material. Or do you actually have proof to the contrary?
Re: (Score:2)
So they are invalid because it points out for all to see the huge whole in your argument? Besides, anyone who has been to Newzbin can clearly see that there is a huge bias towards indexing copyrighted material. Or do you actually have proof to the contrary?
There would only be a bias towards indexing copyrighted material if the ratio of [copyrighted indexed]/[copyrighted available on usenet] is greater than [non-copyrighted indexed]/[non-copyrighted available on usenet]. Otherwise they are just faithfully indexing what is there.
Re: (Score:2)
So they are invalid because it points out for all to see the huge whole in your argument? Besides, anyone who has been to Newzbin can clearly see that there is a huge bias towards indexing copyrighted material. Or do you actually have proof to the contrary?
1) No, they are invalid because the indexing services are UNBIASED. Stop trying to spin the argument. I'm being factual here, I'm not trying to persuade.
2) "...anyone who has been to Newzbin can clearly see that..." This is the same bullshit wordage I he
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you are spinning the argument by misrepresenting the parent's point.
You are arguing that the application software is completely agnostic. This is true, but ultimately irrelevant. The software wasn't sued, Newzbin (the company) was.
The parent is correctly arguing that while the application software is completely agnostic, the people running that software knew damned well what that software was indexing and, in fact, pointed it out explicitly in their user guides and marketing as a feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really the software makers' responsibility to make sure users only upload non-copyrighted material? Do you have any idea how much manpower that requires? Just ask Youtube. The USER is the one who 'pulls the trigger', not the indexing software maker.
Oh, and please reference where their user guides explicitly said they indexed copyrighted/illegal material.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and please reference where their user guides explicitly said they indexed copyrighted/illegal material.
You mean other than when they had a category called "warez" which is a term for pirated software?
The shutdown of freedom, need for adhoc internet (Score:2)
Money and bought politicians will strive to plug any holes in the internet beyond government control.
This is why adhoc wireless is so important.
Finally... (Score:2)
We will get you pirates and prove that Global Warming is a hoax, once and for all!!!
Either that or we'll finally kill off Usenet - win-win, either way.
Limited scope (Score:2)
As far as I can tell from the limited information available and still pending the final injunction details, this judgement only applies to movies and not any other content that may or may not be indexed on Usenet.
At least the judge showed sense in ruling that the MPA couldn't get an injection banning the publishing of content that they didn't hold the copyright to; I know they like to think that they control everything, but sometimes reality gets in the way.
When will people learn (Score:2)
or - why are people are so stupid.
If you write about breaking the law on your site, you are going to get nailed soon or later.
We've seen that again and again - its not that they are overlooking you, its that THEY are overworked and haven't gotten around to you yet.
I don't get it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not all movies are illegal. Some don't contain "objectionable content". Some - mostly the kind I'm rediscovering - have elapsed the protection of copyright.
What sites like Newzbin do is provide a central repository for content owners to search for infringing content. If I had my book/movie/video game being pirated, believe me, I would find sites like this very helpful in shutting down the uploaders. At least, those within the relevant legal jurisdiction.
Even the police like an anonymous tip. It's almost as if the content cartels *WANT* you to pirate their content, so they can then sue you for ridiculous amounts of money. (Why get 99 cents a song, when you can get statutory damages of a few hundred thousand dollars?)
Don't Get Caught, Derp! (Score:5, Funny)
The wrong way to go about basing your business around illegal stuff would be to, say, have meetings about how everything you're doing is completely illegal and then sending your meeting minutes to the ISO auditors. That always leads to questions like "This bit here about where you're illegally benefiting from copyright infringement... what's that about?" It goes downhill from there.
If you're uncomfortable being compared to Bernie Madoff perhaps you should consider a career in something less illegal. The rest of you, only have meetings about your illegal stuff in the bathroom with the water running and don't keep minutes of those meetings! For fuck's sake... This isn't rocket science people!
Re: (Score:2)
(Obligatory Office Space quote)
MICHAEL
I wish we had never done this. What are we going to do? You know what I
can't figure out? How is it that all these stupid, Neanderthal, Mafia
guys can be so good at crime and smart guys like us can suck so badly
at it?
SAMIR
We're new to it, though. If we had more experience -
MICHAEL
No. No. Y'know what I think? I think we're screwed. There's evidence
all over that building to link it to us. Even if we could launder
money, I wouldn't want to. If we're caught while laundering mo
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Spoken just like a person who's never created anything in his life, especially for a living. You do realize (right?) that artists, film makers, muscians, writers - anyone who makes something that is covered by copyright law - can waive those rights any time they want. Which means that the actual people you're bitching about aren't The Eeeevil Corpo
Re: (Score:2)
the artists who make the conscious, deliberate decision to work with a publisher in order to make a living at what they do.
Not much of a free decision due the corporate control of the market, but of course the vast majority of "artists" "create" such abominable "works" that they need corporate packaging. On the other hand, since mankind's greatest artists were generally poor, there is no reason to feel sleazy about ripping them off. Getting paid for their work indicates that they have failed at art, and perhaps even impedes their potential for success!
Re: (Score:2)
No amount of blind justification of strict government enforcement or ad hominem attacks against me and others like me will change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor will your deliberate (or wildly ignorant) mischaracterization of "idea communication" ever give you moral cover for wanting creative people to be your pet entertainment slaves. What does "blind justification" actually mean, anyway? There's nothing "blind" going on here - it's all very simple. You can't copy somebody's work without their permission, and some people gra
It Seems Someone Didn't Like Your Ideas (Score:2)
If you don't like the law, change it! Feel free to start a career in politics to change the machine from the inside. I'm sure many political careers started that way!
If you don't want to do that, find some way to promote your ideas while working inside the status quo! Start a company that collects garage bands from around the world and presents them on the Internet, finding a way to pay those artists enough that they're happy, pay you enough that you can keep doing it and make
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine the art that might be produced if there wasn't such a heavy screen of publishers and labels between creative people and their earnings!
Does Usenet still need tiny size limits on files? (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason that NZB's even exist is that large files uploaded to Usenet get broken up into a ridiculous number of small fragments. It then becomes a chore to locate and reassemble all the pieces.
Bandwidth and storage capacities have increased tremendously over the years that Usenet has been around. Why do people who operate NNTP servers still impose such restrictive limits on file size?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Because file transfers aren't absolutely reliable. With small file sizes, most of the parts make it from server to server, and people already have a bunch of ways of dealing with a little bit of missing data (use more than 1 provider, par2, etc.).
I imagine the fact that a change would favor new users and irritate (some/many?) established users is also a factor.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, I think that's an argument in favor of larger post lengths. The less pieces there are, the less filling in you have to do, and the less PAR file downloading you'll need to do to support it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess it depends on how the servers handle a bad transfer; if they discard incomplete files, larger files will carry a larger penalty, if they just post the partial file, there shouldn't be much difference.
I suspect inertia is a primary factor.
Simple Solution: Encrypt header titles = Fun (Score:2)
All anyone would need to do is simply encrypt header titles that are only viewable in specific programs correctly
Then they cant filter them.... and you know they dont want to filter them anyways ;)
First rule about Usenet... dont talk about Usenet.
Cool! (Score:2)
Until now, I'd never heard of Newzbin. Now I know about this "usenet" thing you speak of, I will investigate.
Usenet? (Score:2)
The battle of freedom (Score:2)
We are losing.
You know what's hilarious? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I switched to a paid Usenet service because it was more "private" than torrent. Does this mean I'm going to have to back to BitchX and CLI to get movies?
No, this is only an indexer of .nzb files, which are analogous to .torrent files; it was also a pay site, there are others out there that are free or automated with ssl connections, so I hear.
You may want to upgrade to an SSL connection though if you are worried, the ISP logs will still show you connecting to a usenet provider, but what you are downloading will not be discernible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Using SSL is definitely a step up, but of course, even this won't help you if the MPAA gets a judge to issue an order forcing your Usenet provider to log all of its users' downloads. I use a paid Usenet service as well, and my concern is that my provider will someday be slapped with such an order, along with a gag order to prevent them from warning their users about the logging.
I'm thinking maybe, at long last, the writing is on the wall for Usenet - at least as far as me using it is concerned. I have too
Re: (Score:2)
Using SSL is definitely a step up, but of course, even this won't help you if the MPAA gets a judge to issue an order forcing your Usenet provider to log all of its users' downloads. I use a paid Usenet service as well, and my concern is that my provider will someday be slapped with such an order, along with a gag order to prevent them from warning their users about the logging.
I'm thinking maybe, at long last, the writing is on the wall for Usenet - at least as far as me using it is concerned. I have too much to lose (job,assets), and too many people depending on me (wife, kids). It's just not worth the risk anymore. No matter how much I despise the MPAA, RIAA, etc, the obsolete business models of the companies they represent, and their strong-arm tactics, I stand to lose FAR more than I stand to gain. I will continue to donate to the EFF, but no more Usenet downloads for me - not even the non-infringing variety.
My understanding is that in every single trial where someone has been prosecuted it was for uploading (due to the fact that copyright restricts the ability of one to create a copy which would be uploading) which is automatically done in P2P environments. When using USENET (as long as you are not posting), you are only downloading.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be, but I no longer feel comfortable that being a "download-only" user is sufficient to keep me safe from potentially ruinous lawsuits. Joel Tennenbaum's case [wikipedia.org] was a real
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If they succeed in making this indexer "play ball", does this not set the precedence for all other indexers? I don't use Newzbin so this currently doesn't affect me but could it possibly down the line?
Thanks for the SSL recommendation BTW, I will check that today.
Newzbin is unique (as far as I know) in that it has people (editors) create the "reports" which indicate which files are what. Other services that exist don't use people and use an AI to try to determine what each file/post is. It appears it's Newzbin's help documentation for the editors that got them in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is a central server log recording every single file you download private? Additionally you now have a nice financial trail making things eve less private.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except for that tiny and important deal that Google's indexer is completely passive while this was a site that was recruiting people to actively go out and provide the links that their site indexed.
Re:Standard Arguments: (Score:4, Informative)
ISPs aren't and never have been common carriers. This is a widespread falsity spread around by Slashdotters.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This may be true for the specific "common carrier" legal status used in the US. In Europe quite a few countries employ similar principles, though I believe the term "mere conduit" is more frequently used than "common carrier". I'm not completely sure what the EU directives say about it, but ISPs here are generally very skeptical to filtering content precisely because they don't want to be made liable
Re: (Score:2)
Rubbish.
This is the defacto notion all over america not just slashdot. Whilst it may not be entirely enshrined in law, they get treated as such DMCA for instance gives them the status that they wont be liable for third party violations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)