| Usenet The first rule of usenet is...... |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
1 edit | Usenet has already lost the first round with Usenet.com losing in court. The other usenet providers are next I would imagine. |
|
 Logan 5Enjoying the CataclysmPremium,MVM
join:2001-05-25
Austin, TX
kudos:7
 ·Comcast
| reply to cooldude9919
Lol... how naive are you by the way??
What do you think is going to be next once the RIAA & MPAA finish taking Bit Torrent tracker sites apart site by site?
Rapidshare & Megaupload are already feeling the heat as they regularly take down content, sometimes as fast as it's uploaded so what makes you (or anybody) think that usenet sites are thought of any differently in the minds of the *.AA's....?
It's been proven that the *.AA's have a long reach and bottomless bank accounts because the Studios are giving them cart blanche to terminate the threat that they perceive to their archaic business model "by any means necessary".....
--
There are 3 sides to every discussion: Mine, Yours & The Truth.
Check out the Dungeon Runners Site & Forums!
Download & play the game for free! |
|
| reply to Matt
said by Matt:Usenet has already lost the first round with Usenet.com losing in court. The other usenet providers are next I would imagine. They where stupid and blatantly advertised downloading mp3's and then did more stupid things such as hiding witnesses. |
|
 TigerLordResident pentaxianPremium,Mod
join:2002-06-09
Montreal
kudos:6 | reply to Logan 5
Usenet has been around longer than Internet has, you're the naïve one if you think the **AA will take usenet providers down, ever... |
|
1 edit | reply to Logan 5
said by Logan 5: Lol... how naive are you by the way?? What do you think is going to be next once the RIAA & MPAA finish taking Bit Torrent tracker sites apart site by site? Rapidshare & Megaupload are already feeling the heat as they regularly take down content, sometimes as fast as it's uploaded so what makes you (or anybody) think that usenet sites are thought of any differently in the minds of the *.AA's....? It's been proven that the *.AA's have a long reach and bottomless bank accounts because the Studios are giving them cart blanche to terminate the threat that they perceive to their archaic business model "by any means necessary"..... I am not naive i am being realistic. Usenet has been around since the 80's and still going strong today. I know it is on their radar, but they have been focusing more on nzb sites than other news service providers. Besides Usenet.com no other provider has had any problems.(that i know of)
There is a such thing as a "cancel message" but most providers ignore it due to abuse, so the MPAA/RIAA would have to send a takedown notice to every single news service provider to have the content removed. If that were an easy way to do this, then why wouldnt they be doing it already? |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to TigerLord
said by TigerLord:Usenet has been around longer than Internet has, you're the naïve one if you think the **AA will take usenet providers down, ever... Popular use of the internet maybe, but it wasn't developed until 1979. |
|
|
|
Logan 5Enjoying the CataclysmPremium,MVM
join:2001-05-25
Austin, TX
kudos:7 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to TigerLord
said by TigerLord:Usenet has been around longer than Internet has, you're the naïve one if you think the **AA will take usenet providers down, ever... Ummm isn't that what was said once about Bit Torrent???
I never said the AA's would "take usenet providers down" I said that the AA's would be going after them next. They've used several different strategies in the past with Bit Torrent so it would not be surprising to see those same tactics used again with usenet...
A site can be litigated out of existence without ever being physically taken down....
Get it right please and stop misinterpreting what I said... |
|
| reply to Matt
said by Matt:Usenet has already lost the first round with Usenet.com losing in court. The other usenet providers are next I would imagine. We will see. Usenet.com was basically asking for it by advertising free MP3s and such. Hopefully they'll have a more difficult time with the legit Usenet providers. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by digitalfreak:said by Matt:Usenet has already lost the first round with Usenet.com losing in court. The other usenet providers are next I would imagine. We will see. Usenet.com was basically asking for it by advertising free MP3s and such. Hopefully they'll have a more difficult time with the legit Usenet providers. I don't think so. All they'll need to do is to subpoena the download logs. |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by Matt:I don't think so. All they'll need to do is to subpoena the download logs. What download logs? How do they know which news server the user got their file from? Usenet just passes the files from Server to Server and unless you look at the right server, you have no idea what files were downloaded by what user. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to cooldude9919
said by cooldude9919:There is a such thing as a "cancel message" but most providers ignore it due to abuse, so the MPAA/RIAA would have to send a takedown notice to every single news service provider to have the content removed. If that were an easy way to do this, then why wouldnt they be doing it already? In addition as soon as Server1 removes the article due to receiving a Takedown Notice, it will immediately get sent by another server since Server1 (no longer) has a copy. Just like the Internet routes around damage, Usenet routes around Takedown Notice Article Deletes. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL:said by Matt:I don't think so. All they'll need to do is to subpoena the download logs. What download logs? How do they know which news server the user got their file from? Usenet just passes the files from Server to Server and unless you look at the right server, you have no idea what files were downloaded by what user. The download logs that show what their users downloaded. This is not about going after the end user, all the subpoena would need to prove is that a large percentage of downloaded files were illegal material. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by Matt:said by RARPSL:said by Matt:I don't think so. All they'll need to do is to subpoena the download logs. What download logs? How do they know which news server the user got their file from? Usenet just passes the files from Server to Server and unless you look at the right server, you have no idea what files were downloaded by what user. The download logs that show what their users downloaded. This is not about going after the end user, all the subpoena would need to prove is that a large percentage of downloaded files were illegal material. You still need to pick a server and all you will see is what the users of THAT server downloaded. There are also files that were just received from another server and feed to a third server. Unless you can block that passing on, the content will end up on every server that has that newsgroup in its carry list. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to Matt
From the Giganews FAQ:
"Giganews does not track the specific articles you download; however, we will track the volume of your downloads for account maintenance and download limit enforcement purposes (if applicable). "
I would imagine that most of the providers have similar handling method. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to Logan 5
said by Logan 5:A site can be litigated out of existence without ever being physically taken down.... Get it right please and stop misinterpreting what I said... I have yet to see a US judge issue an IP block order to all the Tier 1s for an out of jurisdiction site that the plaintiff won on summary judgment. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL:said by Matt:I don't think so. All they'll need to do is to subpoena the download logs. What download logs? How do they know which news server the user got their file from? Usenet just passes the files from Server to Server and unless you look at the right server, you have no idea what files were downloaded by what user. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2006/24/EC nuff said |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:From the Giganews FAQ: "Giganews does not track the specific articles you download; however, we will track the volume of your downloads for account maintenance and download limit enforcement purposes (if applicable). " I would imagine that most of the providers have similar handling method. Yes, and how hard to do think it will be for a court to say, "Turn logging on for X amount of time?" This isn't rocket science guys. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL:You still need to pick a server and all you will see is what the users of THAT server downloaded. There are also files that were just received from another server and feed to a third server. Unless you can block that passing on, the content will end up on every server that has that newsgroup in its carry list. You're missing the point. They are going after the company providing the newsgroup services. Hell, all they'd probably have to do is provide a list of newsgroups and say "track what is downloaded from the servers you provide in these newsgroups."
If they can track how much data each user transfers, how hard do you think it will be for them to track WHAT you've downloaded? Not very hard at all. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to Matt
Matt
Two things, first the court would need probable cause to force a company to turn on logging. Until it could be shown that their specific customers were doing something illegal it would be pretty tough to get done. At which point you have reached one of those chicken and egg situations. I think it MIGHT also be argued that they would only turn on logging for a specific user.
Second Giganews (and presumably others) send out regular notices. IF they were being forced to do this, it would be a pretty safe bet that they would notify their customers in advance. |
|
