×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Newzbin.com Usenet Indexing Trial Set To Begin Next Week

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the ease-of-use dept.

Media 76

An anonymous reader writes "Only a few weeks after a jury acquitted Alan Ellis, the owner of the BitTorrent site 'OinK's Pink Palace,' of copyright infringement, another high profile case is about to start next week, this time for the newsgroup side of things. The MPA (Motion Picture Association) trial against Newzbin.com, a website that indexes NZB files and content on the newsgroups, will begin in London on Monday. Will lightning strike twice in favor of website indexing?" Torrentfreak points out one major difference between the cases: "Ellis’s charge was one of fraud, allegedly conducted by an individual and dealt with under criminal law, while that leveled against Newzbin is one of allowing and inducing illegal copying, i.e copyright infringement, but carried out by a bona fide company under civil law."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

76 comments

Lightning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971238)

It never strikes the same place twice.

First rule of Usenet (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971336)

Somebody has been breaking the first rule of Usenet

Re:First rule of Usenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971770)

Evidently someone with mod points doesn't get the joke.

Re:First rule of Usenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30972172)

You just broke it again you insensitive clod!

Re:First rule of Usenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30977238)

Somebody has been breaking the first rule of Usenet

No kissing on the first date?

Indexing is not a crime (2, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971340)

When I was a kid I used to ride a Frankie Hill board to school everyday. We were big into the whole anti-establishment thing in those days, smoking dope after school and drinking until blitzed on the roof of my friend's house. And we always saw the harassment we got from cops for tearing up private property as something that ought to be changed. Skateboarding, as we used to say, is not a crime.

Nowadays, I'm a little wiser and a little more flush with cash. I can see now how the truck grinds and rail slides were tearing up the things we were essentially vandalizing. It's not something that I'm especially proud of, but I can't say I have any regrets. It's just something that we kids had to do to escape the overbearing oppression our middle class parents were putting on us.

Likewise, indexing newsgroups (and websites) is something that just happens. It's almost impossible to effectively know what is going through the pipes without going in and performing filtering explicitly. Newzbin should be found guilty of indexing, but we should all be defiantly flicking off the MPA and declaring that indexing is not a crime.

Re:Indexing is not a crime (5, Insightful)

SkyLeach (188871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972326)

wait... wat?

"found guilty of indexing"!?!?

wtf does that mean exactly? Guilty of writing a program to search data? Guilty of writing a program to search data and then letting others view the results?

The only way that the MPAA/RIAA even know what is out there is by doing the same thing, the only difference being they aren't providing a service, they are angry about what they found.

What we find ourselves faced with is the guilt or innocence of someone writing software and then *giving away the software and/or the results of the software*. If indexing is a crime, then it is only a very very small step to say that writing software that gives others access to "features" of their hardware that the manufacturer doesn't want to give access to is illegal. After all, without VLC and mplayer it would be pretty easy for Quicktime/iTunes and Microsoft Media player to lock down the watching of illegal movies and listening of illegal music.

Keep walking down that path, and soon we loose all our digital freedoms...

Re:Indexing is not a crime (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973820)

There's two very fundamental decisions in the US, the Sony vs Betamax decision and the MGM vs Grokster decision. The essence is that the Betamax decision says infringements are not sufficient in itself as long as there is substantial non-infringing use, but the Grokster decision (9-0 vote) says it's not a general shield against how you design, apply, market, sell and support it. That goes for how you plan it internally, how you market it externally and how you handle support from users. They could go as far as consider things implicit in its domain or construction, for example if I set up an indexer that only indexed warez groups or had search filters only relevant to warez releases that would be used against me as intent.

In short, you have to keep a thick veil between you and infringing users and pretend the 800lb elephant in the room isn't there. You are making a general tool for a general market, once you start straying from that you are very likely to break the law. And it's an extremely good reason why there's normally a zero tolerance policy on warez talk in support forums. You can not legally allow yourself to know.

Re:Indexing is not a crime (2, Interesting)

furbyhater (969847) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974162)

If indexing is a crime, then it is only a very very small step ... Keep walking down that path, and soon we loose all our digital freedoms...

Massive exaggeration? Newsbin handpicks warez (or even posts them themselves), then creates nzb files and garnishes them with detailed descriptions, only to charge a small fee from everyone who wants access to their "catalog". Quite different from a simple aggregator. The proliferation of NZBs is destroying the usenet community (most current usenet lusers have probably never even read a group. It's just something equivalent to rapidshare to them, but with moar 1334).

Re:Indexing is not a crime (3, Informative)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975942)

Newsbin handpicks warez (or even posts them themselves), then creates nzb files and garnishes them with detailed descriptions, only to charge a small fee from everyone who wants access to their "catalog". Quite different from a simple aggregator.

This is not how Newzbin works at all. It's community-driven. Paying users can 'editorialize' the search results by marking posts of interest and grouping together files in "reports." These reports can have a title, description, article IDs, filenames, and then other users can post comments on them. Newzbin, itself, provides nothing but an index of Usenet headers.

Re:Indexing is not a crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30980252)

Keep walking down that path, and soon we loose all our digital freedoms...

I say we loose them all! Viva la revolucion!

Re:Indexing is not a crime (5, Insightful)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972946)

"Newzbin should be found guilty of indexing"

Then I think Google should be found guilty of indexing [google.com]. After all that link provided me with thousands of valid Windows XP CD keys, and Google indexed those sites and provided me with the information, that's illegal, right? Oops, google just gave me valid credit card numbers! [slashdot.org]

When will Google and all the search engines of the world be brought up on charges and this madness end!?

Re:Indexing is not a crime (2, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#30978650)

Never, because Google can fight back and win - thereby establishing a precedent unfavorable to the **AAs.

Re:Indexing is not a crime (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973762)

Newzbin should be found guilty of indexing

Fortunately for you, they are. Indexing is exactly what they do.
Fortunately for everyone else, indexing is not a crime.

It's pretty much like saying both you and I are guilty of posting messages to slashdot.

Sigh (5, Interesting)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971362)

Unlike, say, The Pirate Bay, Newzbin.com will apparently cooperate with takedown requests. Yet they're getting sued anyway.

Way to be a shining example of rationality there, MPA.

Re:Sigh (2, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973068)

The rights-holders obviously didn't file enough takedown requests to satisfy themselves...or something.

Re:Sigh (1, Flamebait)

the1337g33k (1268908) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973302)

Newzbin does comply with takedown requests however they don't make it easy on them at all. http://docs.newzbin.com/index.php/Newzbin:Item_Removal [newzbin.com]

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30982106)

Who cares if it's easy? Suing someone is a far more difficult process, and costs money. Removal requests are nearly free.

Why is indexing illegal? (3, Informative)

klashn (1323433) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971460)

Newzbin is not providing material for download, but instead just providing information. Google does the same thing... Clicking the first link on google from the search 'office 2007 download warez' this website showed up:
http://www.mydigitallife.info/2006/11/13/download-microsoft-office-2007-system-enterprise-edition-final-rtm-full-suite-retail-cd-with-bt-torrent/ [mydigitallife.info] They're offering Office 2007 as a torrent file

Re:Why is indexing illegal? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971504)

But are they providing information with the intent to facilitate copyright infringement? Intent matters.

Re:Why is indexing illegal? (2, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971562)

Google also has billions and billions of dollars and can exert pressure on information distributors.

Google Exec: "Oops, sorry MPA, apparently you and all of your associated studios just fall off the google. Oh noes!"

Re:Why is indexing illegal? (1)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30980438)

Google also has billions and billions of dollars and can exert pressure on information distributors.

Google Exec: "Oops, sorry MPA, apparently you and all of your associated studios just fall off the google. Oh noes!"

Would that hurt them? Seriously, who goes to the website for movie studios? Or the official movie website for that matter? If anyone I know has a question about a movie at all they go straight to imdb, not googling for the movie studio or official site.

Re:Why is indexing illegal? (1)

ProfanityHead (198878) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971566)

But are they providing information with the intent to facilitate copyright infringement? Intent matters.

In which countries?

Re:Why is indexing illegal? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971592)

England, USA, Australia, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, India and parts of Africa. Possibly others as well.

Re:Why is indexing illegal? (2, Informative)

msclrhd (1211086) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974126)

No, from http://docs.newzbin.com/index.php/Newzbin:Item_Removal [newzbin.com]:

"""
Newzbin indexes and links to everything on Usenet. Sometimes, you may find an item listed that you'd prefer us not to have - you may own copyright over the software for example, and having it distributed via Usenet is not your preferred method.

Since the indexing is automated we can't discern what to index, and what not to index.
"""

Re:Why is indexing illegal? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974848)

The thing is, just claiming they aren't isn't necessarily enough.

Now, I don't know enough to have an opinion on whether they do exist to facilitate copyright infringement or whether they just see it as a generic search engine. There will be more evidence than just the public statement.

Re:Why is indexing illegal? (4, Funny)

antek9 (305362) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971622)

Ok, but it's so easy to take down Google. You know how it works, just enter 'google' into Google... As a collateral, you will also break the Internet that way, but what does the MPA care, anyway.

What (5, Informative)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971568)

There's an enormous difference between The Pirates Bay and newsbinz.

Newzbin just automatically trawls all the binary newsgroups and automatically creates and index of what it finds. It's a common carrier, just like google. The fact that the binary newgroups have an enormous amount of pirated content is no more the fault of newzbin than the fact that the internet is choc full of disturbing porn is the fault of google.

The Pirates Bay, OTOH, is a site where the admins deliberately remove pirated content that was mislabeled from the site. This, as well as the site name, makes their database deliberately biased to help with piracy. Maybe that is illegal and maybe it isn't, but the point is, what TPB does is different than what newzbin does.

Re:What (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971588)

newzbin.com charges cash

Re:What (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971630)

It's not an automatic indexer, it's users submit the nzbs.

Re:What (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971726)

no, it automatically indexes, editors group files together into 'reports'

Re:What (2, Insightful)

zonky (1153039) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972568)

So it's more like dmoz? They link to copyright material as well- it's up to the user to judge if they have a valid license to view the work. Newzbin is a service that can aid copyright holders, nad allow them to get usenet posts cancelled with the newsgroup providers.

Re:What (2, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973046)

Incorrect. Its editors create "reports" from the Usenet feeds that it pulls in from various providers (though you can still browse the feeds directly if you prefer).

That said, Newzbin's content is simply a function of the content of the newsgroups on Usenet; if people only posted non-infringing material to them, then there would only be non-infringing material to report.

Re:What (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974416)

While Newzbin does do automatic indexing, it also does manual indexing using human 'editors'. They are responsible for categorizing and labeling things.

Re:What (3, Informative)

Kirijini (214824) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976354)

Newzbin... [is] a common carrier, just like google.

I understand what you're trying to say, but "common carrier" isn't the right terminology. The term "common carrier" has an important legal meaning, on top of the general idea that it refers to a service provider that is open to the public.

Common carriers, like airlines, railroads, telephone networks, grain elevators (not kidding - in the 1800s, grain elevators were considered by the courts to be "common carriers") are business that are "affected with a public interest," and are regulated. Typically they have unusual liability standards, are forbidden from discriminating, and in return may have special privileges vis-a-vis public right of ways and eminent domain powers.

Google is not a common carrier. Neither is newzbin. ISPs aren't common carriers either - they've been desperately fighting for years to avoid being classified as common carriers, and thus become subject to the kinds of regulations that come with that title.

Let me put it this way - if Newzbin was a common carrier, then a poster on a newsgroup somewhere would be able to sue Newzbin if it didn't index that post within a reasonable amount of time. Likewise with Google - if it was a common carrier, then it would be liable to the owners of websites that it either negligently didn't index (overlooked somehow) or purposefully didn't list (like that website with photos of Michelle Obama made to look like a monkey).

Why not "cyberlocker" sites? (5, Interesting)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971676)

Why are all these cases aimed at people who merely index content? Filehosters like Rapidshare and Megaupload are not only actually hosting and distributing the files themselves, but their whole business revolves around copyright infringement. People pay for premium service to download more illegal stuff faster, and they generate so much ad money from high traffic only because of the infringing files they make available. Finally, they would be a more logical target for civil suit since they actually have money to loose.

I have no sympathy for either of the *AAs and I understand some of these points apply to other sites to some extent, but I don't understand why they choose to overlook the juiciest targets.

Re:Why not "cyberlocker" sites? (3, Informative)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971956)

I should also mention these places tend to have a reward points program where you earn points for each download you get, and these points can be traded for cash or premium service. The hoster Hotfile, in particular, has be popular recently since it's possible to make a decent amount of money if you upload a lot of stuff and spam the links on forums all over the internet. That a makes "piracy" a commercial venture.

These sorts of cash rewards for uploading aren't commonly found in bittorent or usenet.

Re:Why not "cyberlocker" sites? (2, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972100)

Why are all these cases aimed at people who merely index content?

Because its easier to show in the court what is going on ' look, the have this web page here that says you can download xyz'. And then present pretty graphics to the judge. Trying to explain packets and p2p clients would be harder and risky.

And if they shut down 99% of the public sites, they have succeeded in their task. They know they cant ever stop the hardcore, but if they can get to the casual down loader, they will be happy.

Re:Why not "cyberlocker" sites? (4, Interesting)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972974)

Legal fantasies of "intent" and "enabling" are problematic for index sites, but Rapidshare just operates servers, which the law of the universe declares legal. The copyright holders therefore are working to force storage providers and ISPs to start making indexes, because storing, distributing, and indexing pirated material is definitely illegal. (See http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/24/1647251/Rapidshare-Ordered-To-Filter-Content [slashdot.org]) That this requires universal censorship is of no concern to corporations and the politicians that obey them.

Re:Why not "cyberlocker" sites? (1)

furbyhater (969847) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974372)

Since when does "not being allowed to transmit contents copyrighted by a 3rd party" equal universal censorship? You're still able to transmit anything you are allowed to transmit by law, like now. Do you think sounding uber-alarmist makes you cool?

Re:Why not "cyberlocker" sites? (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976682)

I probably should have said "surveillance," though I think government-required filtering of pirated files would progress to blocking things like "obscenity," "hate speech," etc. I suppose Carnivore-style surveillance is already taking place, but more surveillance is still bad. Having to get approval for every byte transmitted over the internet is not cool.

Re:Why not "cyberlocker" sites? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973012)

Basically, I think it is because they'll only do cases where they think they'll win something. For example, quite early on Usenet servers scored some pretty fundamental victories against copyright so they're attacking indexers instead which could put a cramp in Usenet's style. I think the biggest danger is that by attacking Rapidshare and Megaupload, is that they'll kill off files without password because those could be scanned and filtered. I suspect shortly after a victory against them, a new set of file hosts would show up where having a passworded archive is mandatory and you must get info/pass from another service. People will still pay for the bandwidth and it'll be a win-win for everyone but the *AAs.

Re:Why not "cyberlocker" sites? (1)

furbyhater (969847) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974398)

Yeah, a usenet full of passworded archives needing 2 separate websites to unlock them sure sounds like win to me.

Re:Why not "cyberlocker" sites? (1)

tkinnun0 (756022) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974094)

Because Newzbin have set up their business such that the easier it is for their users to pirate stuff the more they get paid.

Re:Why not "cyberlocker" sites? (1)

furbyhater (969847) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974300)

It's easier if you can file suit in the US.
Always go after the weakest preys first, you'll have it easier once you have set a precedence.
The **AAs are being paid a lot by the studios and needs to look busy doing something, but without piracy a lot of the **AA dudes/dudettes would probably be out of work.

Re:Why not "cyberlocker" sites? (1)

emkyooess (1551693) | more than 4 years ago | (#30977094)

I've honestly never used those sites for anything even approaching illegal or illicit. However, few weeks go by that I don't use them for legitimate downloads. Game mod teams often use them for their releases, for example.

Never heard of newzbin.com before (3, Insightful)

tangent3 (449222) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971772)

Now I have. Thanks MPAA.

Re:Never heard of newzbin.com before (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971904)

Not going to do you a lot of good. They're not accepting new members.

Re:Never heard of newzbin.com before (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30972230)

They are, they just require an invite from an existing member. Easiest way to get one is to ask on the forums for your favorite newzbin capable app. I'm always out of invites since I give them to users of my app who ask for one.

Re:Never heard of newzbin.com before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30972532)

Want an invite?

Re:Never heard of newzbin.com before (1)

psyron (1175659) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975540)

NZBMatrix [nzbmatrix.com] is an alternative. One off fee of (IIRC) $10 for full retention, well worth it. I've nearly stopped using torrents altogether since finding that site.

Re:Never heard of newzbin.com before (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976388)

You might also consider Giganews [giganews.com]. They offer plans starting at $2.99 and you can get SSL encryption if you wish. They are also rolling out a VPN offering soon.

Just in case we got many choices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30972370)

for a list http://www.dmoz.org//Computers/Usenet/Search/NZB//
I personaly like www.binsearch.info

I don't mind publicizing usenet because most regular computer users never figure out how to use it, and since most of them moved to torrents the amount of virus moved aswell. USENET is better than netflix or ondemand.

Allowing? (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973126)

"Allowing illegal copying?"

If you're not part of the solution...then you're probably allowing illegal copying. In fact, right now I'm allowing illegal copying, I'm also allowing illegal drug use, murder, rape, public indecency and numerous other crimes - guess I should turn myself in right now.

Re:Allowing? (1)

socz (1057222) | more than 4 years ago | (#30984842)

That's one of the problems with a court system. Things don't always make sense. For example, in my case, I told the judge I would be able to prove certain things were the court to give me permission to obtain certain documents. The judge said "that's up to you to obtain." haha Legally, I can not obtain those as I need the person who the records belong to to give me permission. But say, I obtained them any way I could (say a P.I.) then it wouldn't matter in court, even though they were unlawfully obtained.

So while your argument is sound in theory, it's not applicable. But everyone else who says google also indexes is valid, but guess what? That would make too much sense!

I'm still pushing for the dummy law, in which a judge could request to enact it by stating how the constraint of the law is hindering justice. The reason for the law is because when laws are written, sometimes they can't foresee problems that might arise in the future. And while a judge could interpret a law for true justice, attorneys can appeal in the ruling (which is a good thing) but as long as a technicality of the law permits it, the ruling would be overturned. That is a disgrace as many times (for example) truly bad people get arrested for obvious crimes they've committed yet have to be released because of some technical screw up (not reading of the rights, mistake on paper work etc etc). I don't think letting someone go who just ran over 3 people on purpose because of a screw up makes sense. So the dummy law would be great in that case!

Yes there are a lot of other problems it could create, but well written it could be very useful, such as using "logic" and "true reason" to establish ruling that make sense.

Isn't newzbin.com's index created manually? (1)

CreamyG31337 (1084693) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973190)

I can see true automatic search engines like newzleech.com and binsearch.info being able to use this "we are just a search engine" defense, but NewzBin apparently uses humans to create the index. Stupid, and also an obvious step towards supporting piracy...

Re:Isn't newzbin.com's index created manually? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30974308)

I believe the issue was with newzbin reports which users post, and not with the automated indexing.

2 Things (1)

chucklebutte (921447) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974170)

First OMG Indexing! Get M$ and all other OS's that have indexing capabilities and put them in court and sue them too!

Second, fuck they finally find newsgroups after almost 20 years? Damnit the last and most sacred of all places for pirates, its its or haven or heaven which ever you prefer... Either way you slice it this sucks.

Re:2 Things (1)

emkyooess (1551693) | more than 4 years ago | (#30977136)

You forget that a couple years ago, the state of New York basically killed all ISP-provided Usenet in the US.

Re:2 Things (1)

socz (1057222) | more than 4 years ago | (#30985030)

I must have missed the news! Although when I did come back to the U.S. early this decade and signed up with an ISP, I noticed they were heavily filtered. So not much more than non-binary groups came through boo!

The presiding judge (0)

wiplash (787883) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975252)

A tiny bit of interesting information that a quick bit of googling revealed about the presiding judge - Mr. Justice Kitchin

From here [thelawyer.com]:

Mr Justice Kitchin - One of the newest justices, Kitchin J has made an immediate impact with his clear and thoughtful judgments on IP matters. One IP litigator describes him as "eminently sensible and a very nice bloke". His first year has seen only one judgment appealed, which was dismissed in the Court of Appeal. Most people who have had cases before Kitchin J have agreed he is "a star in the making".

Seems he was also nominated to be a member of the Patents Court [citation needed]... so it appears he seems to have some prior experience and expertise in this particular area.

Do it yourself (1)

Baki (72515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30982072)

Is there any software available to do the indexing yourself? Just let it run every day on the groups you're interested in, feed it with the article lists posted since last time, and build the index yourself at home. That should be quite feasable. After a few months, you would have your private nzb index.

Re:Do it yourself (1)

socz (1057222) | more than 4 years ago | (#30985158)

I did something similar to this! I call it my loot script. It's a script that runs on a usenet program. It initiates the program, logs in, then downloads headers that you specify (group, date range) and creates an index. Then, it searches for what you're looking for (already specified such as release group for smallville). Next it downloads and then rebuilds all your usenet goodies.

I've been wanting to release it but I have to clean up the code first. Also that BSD machine has been moving around quite a bit so I'm pretty sure the files are in some archive now (I haven't used it in a few years since that machine's bios died - I use almost all VM's now yeah!). But now with some new hardware I am looking to dig it up because although I enjoy newsbin, it's a great product that gives me free updates (because I actually paid for it unlike you pirates!) and has awesome features, but more often than not it's slow because of the amount of headers I keep.

Illegal how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30983354)

"leveled against Newzbin is one of allowing and inducing illegal copying"

I'm sure the British Library has a "Mein Kampf" in it indexes but you could hardly accuse them of allowing or inducing Nazism.

I'm a fan of Newzbin. So many times I've missed a programme on the BBC or Sky and haven't recorded it and I can often get it via Newzbin. However it should be noted Newzbin don't supply the programme - I use Astraweb for that. It's they that hold the data. If Newzbin didn't exist I can still get the programmes from Astraweb. I pay my TV license fee and my subscription to Sky. This is no different to me recording via my PVR. In fact I almost consider newzbin as part of my PVR.

Now if I were downloading brand new movies - well that's a whole new area and that I can fully understand being illegal. But I don't download movies just UK TV that I've already paid the BBC and Sky for and had it pressed the button would be on my Sky+ box (PVR).

Illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30984162)

"leveled against Newzbin is one of allowing and inducing illegal copying"

I'm sure the British Library has a "Mein Kampf" in it indexes but you could hardly accuse them of allowing or inducing Nazism.

I'm a fan of Newzbin. So many times I've missed a programme on the BBC or Sky and haven't recorded it and I can often get it via Newzbin. I pay my TV license fee and my subscription to Sky. This is no different to me recording via my PVR. In fact I almost consider newzbin as part of my PVR.

Now if I were downloading brand new movies - well that's a whole new area and that I can fully understand being illegal. But I don't download movies just UK TV that I've already paid the BBC and Sky for and had it pressed the button would be on my Sky+ box (PVR).

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...