Beta
×

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!

Usenet.com May Find Safe Harbor From RIAA lawsuit

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the quit-stepping-on-the-little-guy-biggie dept.

The Courts 126

Daneal writes "Ars Technica has some interesting analysis of the RIAA's lawsuit against Usenet.com. There's reason to believe that Usenet.com — and most other Usenet providers — could qualify for protection under the DMCA's Safe Harbor provision. 'The DMCA's Safe Harbor provision provides protection for ISPs from copyright infringement lawsuits as long as they take down offending material once they are served with a notice of infringement. "Whether the Safe Harbor applies is the central legal question that is going to be raised," EFF senior staff attorney Fred von Lohmann told Ars. An RIAA spokesperson tells Ars that the group has issued "many" takedown notices to Usenet.com, but von Lohmann says that the volume of takedown notices isn't what counts. "The DMCA's Safe Harbor makes it very clear," von Lohmann said. "The number of notices doesn't matter as long as you take the infringing content down."'"

cancel ×

126 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

SUE google (0, Offtopic)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016189)

If you can. lets see your infringement argument there.

sue the internet (1)

User 956 (568564) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016637)

If you can. lets see your infringement argument there.

What I want to know is, how long until the RIAA sues Internet.com, because of infringing stuff they found on the internet?

Seem to remember... (4, Informative)

Romancer (19668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016203)

I thought that they refused to take down the content in the last article about this?

Re:Seem to remember... (1)

Romancer (19668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016237)

From the last article still on the front page of slashdot as I scroll down:

"Usenet.com has been refusing the labels requests"

Re:Seem to remember... (4, Informative)

Romancer (19668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016311)

And from the last article itself:

"To date, Usenet.com has refused to remove content or discontinue offering certain newsgroups."

Re:Seem to remember... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21017643)

Arent binaries in most usenet groups removed automatically after a certain number of days whether or not a takedown has been issued? This is usually determined by the volume of messages and storage of the particular provider. So , is there a time limit on how fast you MUST remove stuff once a takedown has been issued?
I ask , because the way usenet works , stuff doesnt stay on the server forever.

Re:Seem to remember... (2, Informative)

anagama (611277) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021557)

Stuff doesn't stay online forever, but Usenet.com offers something like 150 days of retention, which is quite a while. Other usenet servers offer even more, e.g., Giganews offers 200 days on binaries and up to 1500 days on text.

The Wired article [wired.com] has a link to the actual lawsuit in PDF format. It actually makes an interesting read.

Re:Seem to remember... (5, Informative)

SkankinMonkey (528381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016257)

It's worth noting that Usenet.com does not own/operate usenet, they are just a download service for usenet. They cannot remove things from usenet, they can only prohibit downloads of certain content from their servers, I'd imagine.

Re:Seem to remember... (2, Informative)

Romancer (19668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016383)

From this article:

"If Usenet.com can show that it complies with the DMCA by removing access to infringing content and by suspending the accounts of repeat offenders, it may be enough to provide it with protection under the hosting and linking provisions of the DMCA."

Re:Seem to remember... (2, Funny)

Barny (103770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016953)

Hrmm, correct me if I am wrong (usenet servers in aus are a little odd/different than US ones I think) but doesn't the news server only hold the data for like 30 days or so? So they do take the information down, within 30 days of being issued with a take down notice?

Binary Retention Periods (2, Informative)

allcar (1111567) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017089)

That varies widely from provider to provider. A typical ISP, if they bother to offer a Usenet server at all, may retain binary content for just a few days. On the other hand, some of the commercial news servers have much longer retention periods. GigaNews [giganews.com] , for instance, now boasts a binary retention period of 200 days.

Re:Binary Retention Periods (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21022079)

It was just a thought, happen to know what the time period requirements are for DMCA take downs?

Re:Seem to remember... (4, Interesting)

guruevi (827432) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016485)

That's RIAA FUD. From experience in a webhosting company, RIAA will just send you a notice that there was illegal music found and just give a listing of ALL similar content (like: delete all MP3's although only one is actually infringing) on the site even though it might not be infringing (copyright law DOES have exceptions) or the site might have been hacked before.

They probably refuse to take down content that is legally protected or that is legally not a full work and even if they take it down, within a few minutes another version might be up again so it sounds like the RIAA is going to have to send a lot of notices to take every single Usenet post down.

Re:Seem to remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21018103)

Please explain to me why Usenet.com, a commercial entity, would own any content distributed through NNTP. No one owns that content as far as I know, except maybe the copyright holders. So, going after Usenet.com is going to have zero effect on removing copyright material since they are not the source of infringing content. By the way, how does one remove content from Usenet. As far as I know, you subscribe/unsubscribe from groups/channels so the only thing Usenet.com can do is not subscribe to a particular group/channel.

So, who is refusing to remove content since usenet.com is not the source?

Re:Seem to remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21019037)

Without the RIAA actively participating in the copyright infringement, to verify that the actual available file is a copyrighted work, rather than some 'known-song-name.mp3' on the server with a file size like that of an actual mp3, WHY would usenet have to comply with ANY order, unless they verified that said file was ACTUALLY copyrighted work?

If I have a server with mp3's available for download that happen to have the same name and ID tag information as copyrighted works, but have an actual audio track of something of my own performance or garbage (no, they are not one in the same..), how would I be in violation of copyright infringement, or have to honor ANY DMCA takedown request?

Doesn't copyright infringement require more than an offender having more than just a file name and file size that shows up on some RIAA list?

...Wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21016205)

I thought that the first rule of Usenet was that "YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT USENET"...

USENET? (5, Interesting)

idontgno (624372) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016269)

They wanna take down USENET?

And they're gonna target a single NNTP provider to do it?

OMFG, USENET was P2P before P2P was invented. It's so distributed, diffuse, and attributionless that it's practically untouchable.

Who keeps picking out windmills for RIAA to tilt at? Their legal attack strategist needs to put down the crack pipe and step away from his desk.

Seriously...

Re:USENET? (2, Funny)

Pootworm (1000883) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016435)

No, they want to take down Usenet.com. Slow down there Speed Racer. Breathe.....breeeeeaaathe....

Re:USENET? (2, Funny)

SpacePunk (17960) | more than 6 years ago | (#21019693)

That's probably because they believe that usenet.com IS the usenet. Just like AOL is the internet!

Re:USENET? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21017489)


Some ISPs don't provide newsgroup access anymore, make it a pain to get or have limits on uploading or downloading binaries. RIAA pressure could make this the norm.

Services like Usenet.com and Giganews are quite possibly vulnerable, as we see from this lawsuit. Maybe they'll try to go for customer logs next?

It may not be possible to take down Usenet, but it is quite possible to make it a little more difficult or risky than it is now for the average college student to access binaries.

Although I think the real point of this is to instill paranoia. RIAA lawsuits are a more than anything else a scare tactic and an effective PR campaign designed to instill fear in casual downloaders. That may be why they're going after Usenet.com instead of Giganews or similar sites, to instill some confusion and so that the aforementioned college student thinks he's at risk of a lawsuit himself if he downloads from Usenet (no matter what provider he uses.) My theory at least, take it with a grain of salt.

They might (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21019453)

"Maybe they'll try to go for customer logs next?"

They might, but for downloaders, it might not do that much good.

Remember that the RIAA won their last case because the woman "made available" certain songs on P2P. But if you download, you aren't making something available, and thus less likely to raise the ire of a retarded jury in kansas.

Plus, if a nntp provider is smart, they won't keep logs beyond the amount a user has downloaded.

Re:USENET? (2, Informative)

Simulant (528590) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017635)

It's not all that distributed where the binaries are concerned. Unless it's your primary business, you don't carry the binaries groups. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of USENET piracy could be disrupted by taking down less than a dozen USENET providers.

Bummer. But it was bound to happen. The binaries hosts have gotten a bit too blatant with their marketing and have made USENET binary downloads a far easier endeavor than it used to be. The critical mass of users which triggers copyright lawsuits has been reached.

If usenet.com goes down, the rest will swiftly follow.

Re:USENET? (2, Insightful)

Snotman (767894) | more than 6 years ago | (#21018203)

So, are you saying that NNTP will not allow you to attach a binary file to a post in any other area of usenet but the binaries groups? That sounds wrong to me, but it might be the case. binaries seems to be an arbitrary label on a set of groups. I do not see any reason why other groups/channels could not be created to circumvent this.

Re:USENET? (1)

Simulant (528590) | more than 6 years ago | (#21019675)

That's not what I mean. You can always attach a binary. But... you won't be able to do so in a way that the vast majority of people who want the binary will easily find it.

If the large binary providers go down, it will be back to the days of scattered binaries, ever changing group names, and, any time a group gets too big, your provider will drop it.

It will no longer (or won't become) be a distribution method for the masses.

Re:USENET? (2)

Real1tyCzech (997498) | more than 6 years ago | (#21019861)

Easynews.com global USENET Search.

It doesn't need to be in popular groups. If it's on there, the global search will find it. It can even be seperated into 30 different groups.

Re:USENET? (1)

nEJC76 (904161) | more than 6 years ago | (#21022395)

Plus there are those pesky .nzb files ... wink wink, nod nod

Re:USENET? (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021311)

It's not all that distributed where the binaries are concerned. Unless it's your primary business, you don't carry the binaries groups. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of USENET piracy could be disrupted by taking down less than a dozen USENET providers.
You could. At least in the U.S.

On a lark, I went and drew a little back-of-the-envelope map of Usenet based on a random selection of Path headers from some binary postings. It's not scientific or anything (although I'm sure somebody could probably write a little Perl script that would do it to a few thousand messages and produce a nice peering map), but you start to see who the big players are pretty quickly.

I don't even think you'd need a dozen. If you could force maybe four or five major U.S. sites to discontinue the *.binaries.* groups or implement some sort of filtering, you could seriously disrupt U.S. users' access. You certainly wouldn't kill Usenet or even eliminate binaries altogether, but you could probably drastically shorten average retention and completion.

As a text service, Usenet is practically un-killable. Anyone with a typical PC and a broadband connection could probably maintain a usable text-only feed, and peers aren't that hard to find since the bandwidth isn't too high. But when you get into binaries, particularly binaries with long retention times, the network becomes a lot more fragile. It's not a uniform mesh anymore, and that makes it much less fault-tolerant.

I've been trying to imagine what would happen to the traffic flow if you removed the binaries groups from the U.S. Usenet supernodes; at the very least it's an interesting thought exercise. I think a lot of users might try to switch over to European providers, or maybe to smaller U.S. providers that have suck feeds from the big European ones, which would do some wacky stuff to trans-Atlantic traffic. There's probably a good thesis project in modeling that.

Re:USENET? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21018359)

not USENET, usenet.com

Speaking of crack pipes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21018715)

whoa buddy... they're going after a particular USENET service, not USENET the grand cosmic savior of piracy.

Re:USENET? (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21019511)

Who keeps picking out windmills for RIAA to tilt at?

I hear they hired a guy named Don Quixote.

-

Re:RIAA's biggest mistake.. (2, Insightful)

Technician (215283) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021229)

Who keeps picking out windmills for RIAA to tilt at? Their legal attack strategist needs to put down the crack pipe and step away from his desk.

Seriously...
--


The RIAA's biggest mistake is picking up the role of angry bull elephant. When an angry bull elephant starts attacking the village with intent to cause as much harm as possible, the villagers are quick to;
1 Run and hide.
2 Put up defenses.
3 Directly attack the threat.

In short.. Number 1 is trade offline with the sneaker net. USB drives, USB music players, CD and DVD burners are now the choice for moving massive amounts of data without risk. Number 2 is the online resource to pool knowledge such as the Ray Beckman site and those who are fighting instead of rolling over and paying the settlement supprt center. and 3.. Counter suits, RICO suits, Anti-Trust suits, Class Action Suits, and artists openly slamming them such as the recent tour where the artist told the crowd to steal the music. Artists are going independent. The RIAA is badly wounded, angry, dangerous, and is being dealt with in response. The PR is in the trash. They need to change or die. Even the congress is looking at changing copyright law.

I love the RIAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21016299)

Captain: What on earth are you saying happened!?

Engineer: It seems that someone has set explosives.

Communication operator: Captain! We've received a signal!

Captain: What!?

Communication operator: Main screen, incoming visual.

Captain: Y-you're--!

CATS: You gentlemen seem preoccupied.

CATS: Thanks to the co-operation of the Federation Government forces, all of your bases belong to us.

CATS: It seems your ship will eventually meet its end as well.

Captain: It-It can't be...!

CATS: I thank you for your cooperation.

CATS: Cherish these few remaining moments of your lives.

CATS: Ha ha ha ha...

Communication operator: Captain....

Captain: All ZIG units, take off!!

Captain: There's nothing but to put our trust in them...

Captain: Our future, in hope...

Captain: (We're) Depending on you. ZIG!!

Common Carrier Defense ... (3, Interesting)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016303)

Since Usenet just publishes other people's stuff, don't they (at least somewhat) qualify for common carrier classification (similar to phone companies) in that the the content is someone else's?

Along these lines, what about Google/other search engines that show "copyrighted" content - either in the snippet or in their cache?

Re:Common Carrier Defense ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21016451)

No, Common carrier is a law specific to phone companies. Because they were required, by law, to lease there lines to other companies they can not be held liable for anything that travels over those lines. It is a very specific case brought about because fedral funds were used to build the phone network. It is not relevant in any way to Usenet.

Federal funds did * not * build the phone network (4, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017085)

It is a very specific case brought about because fedral funds were used to build the phone network. It is not relevant in any way to Usenet.

The first US telephone exchange opened in 1978. AT&T and the regional Bell companies were privately financed from day one and evolved into regulated public utilities.

The common carrier rule can be traced back to the days when Western Union was in its prime and censoring telegrams it found inconvenient.

With the the exception of civil engineering projects like the Panama Canal, federal spending on infrastructure begins with the New Deal of the 1930s.

Re:Federal funds did * not * build the phone netwo (1)

volpe (58112) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020339)

The first US telephone exchange opened in 1978.

Uh... What?

1878 (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020603)

The first US telephone exchange opened in 1978.

It's a typo. So sue me. Bell's patent was issued in 1876 and the telephone was a big hit that year at the Centennial Expo in Philadelphia.

Re:Common Carrier Defense ... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016467)

Since Usenet just publishes other people's stuff, don't they (at least somewhat) qualify for common carrier classification (similar to phone companies) in that the the content is someone else's?

Along these lines, what about Google/other search engines that show "copyrighted" content - either in the snippet or in their cache?


The very short answer: No. They're protected by the DMCA safe harbor protections but they are not legally common carriers, which is probably a good thing since it carries a bunch of regulations, it's also in part "you can't keep me off the grid". However, the DMCA protections are pretty solid - they telecom industry didn't sit on their ass and watch the entertainment industry make them liable.

Re:Common Carrier Defense ... (4, Informative)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016517)

You're missing the point. (And the Ars Technica article mentions the point and then proceeds to ignore it.)

The issue is that Usenet.com blatantly (from a common-sense point of view, whether it's legally meaningful I have no idea) markets themselves as a way to illegally obtain copyrighted content. As someone put it yesterday, if the phone companies ran commercials advertising "Telephones -- the best way to plan your terrorist activities!" that would cut into their ability to claim common carrier status as a defense. Same thing for Safe Harbor.

Incidentally, didn't we have a story a few months ago complaining that the MPAA and RIAA weren't suing usenet providers, and how that proved some conspiracy theory? If that faction is relieved at this new development, I haven't seen them mention it.

Re:Common Carrier Defense ... (4, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016639)

Yes, those ads are part of the problem, because it hurts their Safe Harbor defense (see my post which quotes the section of the DMCA, further down in the thread). But only insofar as they might show that Usenet.com was benefiting directly from illegal content. And I'm not sure they do that, because the ads aren't that blatant. They basically just suggest that they have a rigorous privacy policy, etc. It's not totally damning.

Where I think they get into trouble is that, in order to claim Safe Harbor, they basically need to be able to claim "hey, somebody put that up onto our system, we didn't know it was infringing, we didn't even know it was there!" And it's a bit tough to do that with Usenet, seeing as how it's about 99% binaries and anyone who's ever opened up the alt.binaries.* hierarchy can tell that it's got a lot of bootlegs and warez in it.

It would be a little comical to see a whole bunch of seasoned network engineers and other greybeards try to claim that they had no idea there was copyrighted material on Usenet. ("Warez? On my Usenet?") But that's sort of the position they have to put themselves in, in order to get a successful 512(c) defense.

They also have to show that in the past they've complied with DMCA takedown orders against content that a copyright holder has pointed out as being infringing, which it seems like they weren't doing. That may also be a problem, although maybe they can argue that they didn't have the capability to delete articles (after all, if they took them out of their store, would they just have come in on a feed from another site that they peer with?). It might be difficult to get a judge to swallow that, though.

I think they're in trouble, but I'm not sure exactly how much trouble just yet.

Re:Common Carrier Defense ... (4, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017641)

It would be a little comical to see a whole bunch of seasoned network engineers and other greybeards try to claim that they had no idea there was copyrighted material on Usenet. ("Warez? On my Usenet?") But that's sort of the position they have to put themselves in, in order to get a successful 512(c) defense.

Why is that a barrier to a successful 512(c) defense? If the host, Usenet.com in this case, services all take down notices in a reasonable and timely fashion and makes reasonable efforts to accommodate copyright holders (the court decides what is and is not reasonable) then have they not fulfilled their obligation under the law? How would they know if there was a copy of Eric Clapton's greatest hits on their network? Sure they could search for it if they wanted to but are they required to have automated agents searching all of the time for everything that might be copyrighted? Is that reasonable or even feasible? Certainly not, it is the responsibility of the copyright holder to locate infringement and take the legally required step of sending a take down notice. As long as there is a reasonable system in place to service requests from copyright holders, then the content host has fulfilled its obligations and should be able to take refuge in the safe harbor.

what an nntp server admin could do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21019377)

is forge a cancel and at least honor it on the local servers. that way I'm pretty sure that it then sticks as far as whether it'll show up again from other feeds.

Re:Common Carrier Defense ... (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017735)

If telephone companies advertised themselves as the "best way to plan a terrorist attack" it would be because somebody decided that that was the best marketing strategy. and if so, it would be legal.

When dealing with a massive corporation shoveling buckets of money into the hands of the senators, the "won't somebody think of the children" argument is remarkably hard to hear.

Re:Common Carrier Defense ... (1)

Snotman (767894) | more than 6 years ago | (#21018389)

I am sorry, but I took a cursory look into Usenet.com(splash page and 'Why Usenet.com?') and I do not see advertisements to download copyrighted material. It seems that they take privacy seriously by protecting a persons anonymity; why is that crime? Does the fact that you cash make you a criminal because you can't track the transaction back to an individual? I expect you use credit cards so that all your purchases are recorded, otherwise we all should raise an eyebrow to your private behavior. I guess in your world, if you are not broadcasting your behavior, you are hiding criminal intent. That is bogus. Maybe the police should be pulling you over more often since you seem to equate privacy with criminal behavior. Some of us are not hiding anything, we just do not think it is anyone's business to know my business. There is a difference.

But then again, maybe I am not seeing the obvious and explicit advertisements to pirate copyrighted material.

Example? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21018485)

I've been on usenet.com's site and can't see anything overtly suggesting potential customers use their service to post/retrieve copyright material without authorization.

Granted, most of their paying customers probably use the service for that, but where's the (legal) beef?

The rub. (5, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016377)

To be honest, I don't know how Usenet.com can not qualify for DMCA protection, since it's exactly the type of service that the Safe Harbor exception is supposed to protect. The only thing that seems like it could harm Usenet.com is their advertising, which does veer a little into "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" territory. However, damning a company because it says it respects users' privacy, without actually advocating any type of criminal activity, seems like pretty terrible precedent, and I can only hope (although at this point I have little faith) that a judge will see it similarly.

I think the mention in the Ars article about Safe Harbor being related to "transitory network communications" is irrelevant here. Transitory network communications is covered under 512(a) of the OCILLA (which is part of the DMCA); the portion that I would expect Usenet.com to seek protection under is 512(c), "Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users".

You can read the relevant section here [cornell.edu] , but the significant portion, IMO, is:

A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider--
(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and (C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

The major things they're going to have to avoid are that they "had actual knowledge" that the material was infringing (which might be tough -- I mean, anybody who opens up alt.binaries.movies can probably tell pretty quickly that it's full of bootlegs) and that they didn't receive a "financial benefit directly attributable" to the infringing activity. I think that second one is actually a little easier (for Usenet.com) than the former. And, of course, they have to successfully argue/explain that they don't really have the power to remove articles from Usenet, because of the nature of the network -- it would probably help their case if they started at least deleting articles from their spool/store when they receive a complaint.

I suspect that this may lead to a shakedown in the Usenet provider world, if Usenet.com loses. At the very least, the big providers might have to do more in order to maintain a veneer of plausible deniability (deleting some of the more obviously movie and/or warez related groups, perhaps), or move their servers out of the U.S.

Re:The rub. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21016615)

It goes farther than wink wink, nudge nudge if this page is any indication: http://www.usenet.com/articles/free_download.htm [usenet.com]

Wow. Suicide by advertisement. (5, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016715)

It goes farther than wink wink, nudge nudge if this page is any indication:

http://www.usenet.com/articles/free_download.htm [usenet.com]
Humm. Yeah, that's a lot more blatant than they were making it out to be in the Ars article. In fact, what the hell, guys? I know it has a copyright date of 2005 on it, but even if that had been written in 1995 it still would have been a little much.

To wit: (in case they take the page down, which I sure would if I were them)

Where Can You Get Free Downloads These Days?
Well, we must admit that it is getting harder and harder to find anything free on the Internet these days. File sharing websites are getting shut down, spam is all over the net and free download options are getting thinner by the day. So what is the Internet user who loves to download stuff for free to do in this situation? There is one solution which has existed for a while but not everyone may be informed of just yet. This solution is called Usenet, also known as The Usenet Experience. It is an underground because it is not a website that anyone can randomly access by doing a search in Google, Yahoo, or AltaVista. It is somewhat hidden and restricted because not everyone has access to the free download areas, called newsgroup.
So How Do You Get to the Place with Free Downloads?
It is easier than you may think. The place which soon may be the only one that offers free downloads is available to everyone through a Usenet service provider company, such as Usenet.com. In order to start downloading all you want, you need to have Internet access (which you probably have already since you're reading this) and a Usenet account. Once you join Usenet.com, you can access the Usenet newsgroups and start downloading all you want without paying an additional cent. Tired of busy file sharing programs such as KaZaa? Then Usenet is the place for you. It's a place that has it all and where you can download it all. Usenet has a much wider selection than any of the other file sharing programs and it is available to you to use 24 x 7, no mater who's online or who isn't. The files are all hosted on the provider company's servers and it is available to all users to view and download.
What Exactly Can You Download in Usenet?
Anything and everything. Literally. There are movies, mp3s, cartoons, wallpapers, sounds, videos, pictures, warez, games, software and much more. The files (also known as "binaries" in Usenet) are organized by subject in the so called "newsgroups," which makes it really easy for everyone from the inexperienced user to the expert to find what they are looking for.
The hell with it: They're pretty fucked.

Re:Wow. Suicide by advertisement. (1)

g00nsquad (971393) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017725)

The only part of that excerpt that could be interpreted as usenet.com encouraging copyright infringement - that I can see - is the word 'warez' in the last paragraph. The rest is simply advertising the viability of Usenet as a medium for obtaining free (read: not necessarily pirated) files.

Looks like the tired old argument about free files equating or not equating to pirated files is still alive and kicking.

Re:Wow. Suicide by advertisement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21022381)

They also claim that these are free files that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet and that these are the type of files that used to be downloaded from services already found guilty of copyright infringement. That leaves pretty much nothing but copyrighted files.

Otherwise could you give an example of a free download that cannot be downloaded from regular internet (for the sake of simplicity; the web), used to be typically downloaded through P2P products and is NOT copyrighted?

Not saying it's watertight, but they're still drowning in there.

Re:Wow. Suicide by advertisement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21017837)


These guys do it right:

http://www.usenetserver.com/en/dmca.php [usenetserver.com]

And no marketing of anything other than specs on the entire site, as far as I can tell.

Usenet.com got greedy and stupid.

Re:Wow. Suicide by advertisement. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020865)

Yep. The Usenetserver (or UseNetServer, as they seem to spell it) guys have always struck me as pretty smart. I remember back in the day they switched over from NT to Linux and offered a free account to all Linux users for a while. They seemed honestly interested in understanding what people wanted in their service, and they seem to have done pretty well for themselves as a result. I was looking at Top1000 yesterday and they're actually the top provider in terms of traffic, even bigger than Giganews, which surprised me (because Giganews is the default provider for a lot of broadband ISPs, i.e. Comcast, who don't do their own news servers anymore).

If you look at their site and then compare it to Usenet.com's, it's pretty clear that UNS is going for a different class of customer; they're not trying to bring in the "where's this Usenet-thingy I keep hearing I can get free stuff from?" crowd. In fact, if you didn't know what Usenet was when you went there, you'd have no idea.

I think they're probably safe, but you're right, it's the services who got greedy and sloppy -- catering to users who were just looking for an alternative to P2P networks, mainly -- that are going to get slaughtered if the **AAs decide to go to town on them.

They still need to concern themselves with 512(c)(A)(ii), the part which says "in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent". Although I don't agree with it, I could see someone making an argument that anyone maintaining a multi-terabyte news server would have to have looked at the contents of some of the groups and realized that the bulk of the content of the binaries groups, which itself is the bulk of a modern newsfeed, is copyrighted material. If you found a sufficiently ignorant judge, and could manage to convince them that Usenet in general was basically a 'piracy machine,' then they might invalidate the Safe Harbor provision for anyone running a big newsfeed, even if they're careful and don't violate 512(c)(B) (the 'no profit' rule). That's kind of a nightmare scenario, but I think it bears thinking about if only as a worst-case.

Re:Wow. Suicide by advertisement. (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021255)

I was looking at Top1000 yesterday and they're actually the top provider in terms of traffic, even bigger than Giganews, which surprised me (because Giganews is the default provider for a lot of broadband ISPs, i.e. Comcast, who don't do their own news servers anymore).
Isn't that just the top servers by "article flow", aka "number of posts made by subscribers"? It seems that experienced, heavy posters have their favorite service, which may or may not overlap with the preferred "leeching" news servers.

I used UNS first before trial-ing and switching to Giganews. Side-by-side comparison showed that while retention was comparable, UNS's completion was awful. PAR files became mandatory on nearly everything I downloaded vs. Giga not needing them on the same exact files. Interestingly, an hour or two after failed requests for articles, it appeared that UNS would go find them from a peer and fill them in. But that's only after a failed/incomplete attempt to download them.

Re:Wow. Suicide by advertisement. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021415)

Isn't that just the top servers by "article flow", aka "number of posts made by subscribers"? It seems that experienced, heavy posters have their favorite service, which may or may not overlap with the preferred "leeching" news servers.
I'm not totally sure. I think that it's some metric which is supposed to measure peering, not necessarily the number of messages originating there. So you could get a high rating either by originating a lot of messages and sharing them with only one other server, or you could do it by sharing a smaller number of messages with a lot of servers. At least, I think that's how it's measured -- I'd be interested if anyone wanted to clarify.

It's entirely possible that UNS.com wins because it's where the traffic originates from, but Giganews contains more leechers; I suppose I could see how that would make UNS look like the more valuable 'peer' (and, in fact, they would be -- you'd want to peer with the place where the content is coming from, obviously). I strongly suspect that if you think about what's required to post content to Usenet, that it's mostly done by experienced users, and a much larger number of leechers consume it.

What I'd really like to see is a map of the peerings, rather than just traffic stats; something similar to the old mid-80s ASCII map you see frequently (you know, this one [quux.org] ). There has to be some easy way to dump a bunch of Path headers into a database and have it cough up which server is peered with which other servers on command, and make some nice graphs. This [cord.de] seems to be pretty close, but it's just a tool to do it using a server's logs; nobody seems to be generating and posting recent ones (the example data looks pretty out of date).

I used UNS first before trial-ing and switching to Giganews. Side-by-side comparison showed that while retention was comparable, UNS's completion was awful. PAR files became mandatory on nearly everything I downloaded vs. Giga not needing them on the same exact files. Interestingly, an hour or two after failed requests for articles, it appeared that UNS would go find them from a peer and fill them in. But that's only after a failed/incomplete attempt to download them.
Interesting. Well, I can't really say I've had any negative experiences with either; I used UNS' free account for a while a long time ago and thought it was fine, and now I use Giganews just because it's free -- but I basically just use the text groups, no binaries, so it's not like I'm hard to please.

Re:Wow. Suicide by advertisement. (1)

vsync64 (155958) | more than 6 years ago | (#21018025)

It is an underground because it is not a website that anyone can randomly access by doing a search in Google, Yahoo, or AltaVista.
...so of course the first thing these guys do is put up a "website"[sic] talking about it?

Re:Wow. Suicide by advertisement. (1)

Snotman (767894) | more than 6 years ago | (#21018797)

Hmmm, are you familiar with something called public domain? Maybe you live in a world where everything has a copyright, but I don't. Copyrights expire and for good reason; so the public can take the work and expand it which can enrich the market more so than the original work - think Shakespeare, Dickens, etc. So, is this advertising to pirates? I don't think so. Although, when a pirate sees the above article, that is what they read. Please take your myopic blinders off and remember that the world has been creating content since the beginning of recorded history, not just the twentieth century.

Totally beyond plausibility. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021203)

Hmmm, are you familiar with something called public domain? Maybe you live in a world where everything has a copyright, but I don't. Copyrights expire and for good reason; so the public can take the work and expand it which can enrich the market more so than the original work - think Shakespeare, Dickens, etc. So, is this advertising to pirates? I don't think so. Although, when a pirate sees the above article, that is what they read. Please take your myopic blinders off and remember that the world has been creating content since the beginning of recorded history, not just the twentieth century.
Seriously?

Do you have any idea how much public domain content has actually been digitized? I suspect that if you took all the PD music and video that's around in digital form, combined it with all the text, you still wouldn't get close to the capacity of a big Usenet site. (Keep in mind the entire Library of Congress -- which is mostly filled with post-1923 content -- is estimated to be about 20TB; a big newsfeed might take in 3-4TB a day.)

Yes, there is a lot of old stuff around. (In fact, I'm a rather ardent supporter of digitization and preservation of public domain and other old and antiquarian material. And I think the copyright term extension was bullshit.) But you need to put in perspective that while human civilization has been around for a while, a very significant fraction of all the people who have ever lived are alive right now: some 5-10%, depending on which estimate for total population you believe. And widespread literacy is fairly new, so a lot more of those people are in a position to produce content than their forebears.

Even if the content on Usenet was a random distribution of content chosen without regard to date created -- if the people downloading content had just as much interest in copies of the Rig veda as they did in the latest pop music album -- it would still end up containing huge amounts of in-copyright material: because a massive fraction of humanity's total creative output, in absolute numbers, has been produced fairly recently and is trapped in the extremely long copyright terms we've created. (Datapoint: the U.S. alone published 106k books in 1996, and 206k in 2005 -- that's almost doubling in a decade. In the early 20th century it was around 10k new titles per year.* [swivel.com] )

And combine that with the fact that most material created prior to the 1970s (to say nothing of material created before 1923) hasn't been digitized yet, yet we're talking about an all-digital medium here, and the public-domain argument becomes even weaker. And what stuff does exist in the public domain tends to be text, rather than video (not that there isn't some movies and video, but there's not that much), so it's pretty small in terms of space.

Look, I really believe in the importance of freedom of information, and hate the pro-copyright lobby that's twisted the laws over and over again to their own advantage, but I hate a downright stupid argument even more. And trying to assert that all the content on Usenet could plausibly be public domain stuff is laughable.

Let's not try to minimize this issue by making arguments that wouldn't last even a few seconds in front of a determined opponent or even a reasonably competent judge. I *wish* that most of the content on Usenet's binaries groups was in the public domain, but it's not and everyone knows it.

Re:Wow. Suicide by advertisement. (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21019801)

If you clip out the single word "warez", there is nothing wrong with that text. But yeah, "warez" appears to be a real problem. Hmmm... I'm not sure "warez" would apply to advocating infringement of any RIAA copyrights though.

By the way, here's a link [dance-industries.com] I happen to like to another "Where Can You Get Free Downloads These Days?" place. I'm sure most of those free downloads are also on Usenet somewhere or other, but the site I linked is much better organized and has rating systems and other helpful stuff. I found quite a bit of music I like there.

But if you're up to the effort sorting through a billion files, yeah Usenet probably carries all that plus vastly more unfiltered and unsorted files of all sorts (or more precisely semirandom unenforced sorting).

-

Not exactly.... (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020765)

even if that had been written in 1995 it still would have been a little much.

In 1995, that advertisment makes a lot of sense, as not-for-profit copyright infringment was non-actionable.

IANAL

Re:Not exactly.... (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020945)

Sure, but the fact that they're advertising it as one of the benefits of a service that they charge for might make it difficult to call it "not for profit." Although perhaps you could argue that the infringement per se wasn't committed for gain (the actual uploading of the file by the originating user), the provider is certainly benefiting by it. Even in 1995 I think any decent lawyer would have had a stroke if they were asked if that was a good idea.

Heck, even warez sites and BBSes in 1995 were less obvious than that, at least they seemed to generally realize they were doing something illegal.

It's one thing to tell your customers that you'll respect their privacy and offer totally anonymous access, etc. -- the sort of 'wink wink nudge nudge' that the Ars article alludes to -- but it's another to specifically advertise your service as a source for warez.

Re:The rub. (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016873)

The only thing that seems like it could harm Usenet.com is their advertising, which does veer a little into "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" territory.

Along with every single high-speed broadband provider on earth.

Re:The rub. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21017577)

I don't know how Usenet.com can not qualify for DMCA protection

Quite easily: by pissing off a corporation with lots of money. Since when has the little guy won when it comes to copyright in the USA?

Re:The rub. (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 6 years ago | (#21018141)

usenet.com is not small.

Re:The rub. (1)

SiliconEntity (448450) | more than 6 years ago | (#21019113)

There's another section of the DMCA that offers a different "safe harbor":

(a) TRANSITORY DIGITAL NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS- A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if--

    (1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;

    (2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;

    (3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;

    (4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and

    (5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.
This "transitory communication" safe harbor is aimed at networks that just pass the data through. The article mentions that AOL tried to take advantage of this one because they only retained data for 14 days and the judge in an earlier case thought that was "transitory" enough.

Note that this safe harbor does not require any compliance with notifications! However the article is confused and indicates that AOL's failure to comply with notifications caused it to lose this safe harbor.

Common Carrier - Not Safe Harbor (1)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | more than 6 years ago | (#21019993)

USENET.COM should be considered a common carrier (like a telco) rather than an ISP. They provide access to a service provided by others only, and do not provide additional value in the process. They charge a fee for this access.

Why doesn't the MAFIAA just sue all the telcos-- without them, nobody would be able to download unauthorized copies of their material!?

I'm sure USENET.COM will lose the battle, but it is really sick that this is the case.

RIAA-Free Zone (1)

kardar (636122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020535)

What we might end up with, if we're lucky, is a Usenet devoid of anything even remotely related to the RIAA.

That, my friends, would be a good thing.

At this point -- seriously -- I'm actually quite interested in knowing whether or not an artist I am interested in purchasing an album from is with a label that is part of the RIAA.

By promoting the downloading of commercial-type stuff, filesharing apps and sites are just "working" the same marketing machine set up by these huge organizations.

Better to get rid of that music.

This could turn out well.

Ok, let's begin with the obvious stuff (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016443)

1) Usenet != usenet.com, which is merely a host. The RIAA is not attacking a protocol. They are suing a company that hosts a lot of NNTP traffic, some of which may be infringing on copyright.

2) It's fscking hilarious that the DCMA may wind up being used against the RIAA. Kudos to Ars for thinking up that one.

3) If the DCMA doesn't help, maybe the supreme court ruling stating that an ISP is not responsible for user generated content will. Details here. [dotcomeon.com] (Note: The article isn't about copyright, it's about libel. But if an ISP is legally the same thing as a telephone carrier, then by extension they are not responsible for copyright content. Much in the same way you can't sue AT&T for copyright violation if a person transmits a copyrighted work through their system via modem.)

Re:Ok, let's begin with the obvious stuff (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016627)

", maybe the supreme court ruling stating that an ISP is not responsible for user generated content will."

The DMCA specifically says that. this isn't new and it's what protects google et. al.

Re:Ok, let's begin with the obvious stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21019779)

I really hope that nobody is taking this guy seriously. I mean, not only does he not have anything to say that hasn't been said 234728934728934892 times already, but he repeatedly refers to the DMCA as the "DCMA". It's obvious that he's just parroting stuff he's read in earlier threads, and badly at that.

Re:Ok, let's begin with the obvious stuff (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020935)

In response to your points:

1) True, but there are not really all that many major Usenet servers of this type. It won't be difficult to kill them off, much as we've seen with various commercial P2P developers (Napster, Grokster), torrent trackers, etc.

2) I wouldn't pin my hopes on it. There's a number of hurdles and I doubt that usenet.com will get over them.

3) You're thinking of 47 USC 230. It doesn't apply in copyright cases by its own language. And it is quite distinct from the idea of a common carrier (which ISPs are not) in any event.

if usenet.com takes down stuff (2, Interesting)

gslavik (1015381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016543)

So, if I post something using another provider that a music label asks usenet.com to takedown and usenet.com does it, won't people leave them because they are taking down stuff that I post and move to another nntp provider? But won't usenet.com go out of business because they will lose customers?

Re:if usenet.com takes down stuff (1)

BUL2294 (1081735) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017243)

Or better yet... If I post something on Usenet (using an NNTP provider that's not usenet.com) and usenet.com takes that post down as a request of the RIAA/MPAA, could I sue usenet.com?

Re:if usenet.com takes down stuff (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 6 years ago | (#21018195)

No, why do you think you would be able to sue them?

Re:if usenet.com takes down stuff (1)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 6 years ago | (#21018563)

usenet.com can't take it down... they can just remove it from their listings. the post/posts will still exist, just not be visible from usenet.com's services.

Re:if usenet.com takes down stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21021797)

It can only be taken down if it is spam, or hierarchy maintainers can take it down. Seeing as there are no maintainers in alt.*, that's the problem...

Take Down Notices? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21016971)

But they are just a carrier, how are they going to 'take down' a file? ( beyond blocking access to the entire group )

a host not a carrier (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017167)

But they are just a carrier, how are they going to 'take down' a file? ( beyond blocking access to the entire group )

Usenet.com is a host, not a carrier. It advertises easy access to pirated content. It is Usenet.com that may be going down, like Grokster.

Re:a host not a carrier (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017413)

Doesnt usenet.com just offer access to netnews? If so, then the are a carrier, just a ATT is, or any ISP.

Re:a host not a carrier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21019521)

No, because they don't just connect, they store the posts on their own servers.

Re:Take Down Notices? (5, Informative)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017841)

But they are just a carrier, how are they going to 'take down' a file?
By issuing a cancel message for the Message-IDs composing the "file" (but with a Distribution: local header as that is as far as their responsibility extends).

Of course, that assumes the party issuing the takedown notice knew to cite the offending articles by Message-ID. The canceled messages will not re-propagate to the server. The poster, anywhere else in the world, could still repost under a new Message-ID (automatically generated for every posting). The cancel messages can even contain the takedown notice in each message body, which would be readable in the newsgroup named "control" and/or in "control.cancel" if it is present.

They wouldn't necessarily even have to cryptographically sign the cancels since they are local, though it might be wise to prevent fellow users of the same server wildly canceling other articles.

These organizations could technically send out their own cancel messages with unrestricted distribution, though I'm not familiar with the current state of the art in preventing forged cancels. If spammers have truly lost interest in Usenet, it may have come to the point where cancel messages are generally ignored.

Re:Take Down Notices? (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020525)

By issuing a cancel message for the Message-IDs composing the "file" (but with a Distribution: local header as that is as far as their responsibility extends).

I think that's incorrect.

First, cancellation messages have a tortured history and generally aren't honored.

Second, the issue is with content on usenet.com's own servers. All they would need to do is to null out the body of each message and leave the header information (for administrative purposes, etc.). This is indeed what a number of providers actually do. It's not unusual for a news service provider to remove content when asked to do so by law enforcement, or when requested to do so by individuals demonstrating IP ownership and infringment. If you read through the TOS of the larger providers, I'm sure you'll find a section where this is explicitly described.

So yes, a news provider does have some control over content. They can remove it outright, aggressively expire articles, impose retention limitations, or simply remove groups or entire hierarchies. That doesn't mean it's feasible or practical to do so. At least without hurting their profit model. ;-)

So the **AA's plan is (2, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017029)

to force ISP's to filter the entire fscking Internet, one service at a time?
This is going to be interesting. If Usenet.com goes down, next will be NNTP service filters on every ISP in the US, and then by association, such efforts will be made in the rest of the world. Perhaps it might not work in Russia for fear of being mistaken for a spammer, but in the rest of the world, the US government and the **AA will push to have the entire Internet filtered...

The next step? To filter all your email, IM, and VoIP traffic as well, and in fact any method of sharing data. Sounds like tin foil hat stuff, but that seems to be the writing on the wall. If the **AA has those filters in place, guess who will be using them? Why the NSA of course. Any bets on whether the **AA are digging so deep into their wallets on the legal battles because the NSA is promising to refund some portion of the cost, if they are not already secretly funding them from money that went missing in Iraq?

yeah, sounds a bit crazy, but after the lies that have been discovered lately, it would NOT surprise me.

How far does this go? (1)

Cryophallion (1129715) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017083)

So, how far does this go? If someone makes a torrent that has a txt file in it that says they'll stop seeding if someone files a takedown, does that mean they'm safe? Or just a file that says that in a shared folder?

Does this also protect torrent trackers? I thought isohunt had to take down US trackers because of riaa pressure. Does this protect them too (as I know they have a takedown option)?

I would have thought this was the first defense any of the trackers would have used. Why would it apply only here, and not to trackers?

Re:How far does this go? (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021005)

So, how far does this go?

Read 17 USC 512 carefully (it's not as well-organized as one would prefer) making careful note of various cross-references, definitions (which may be in section 101 as well as 512), etc. and also take a look at the page here [copyright.gov] .

Further, I'd take a look at cases where 512 was an issue, including Napster, Ellison, and Perfect 10.

The safe harbor is useful, but it takes work to qualify for it, and it doesn't apply to everything or everyone.

Streisand Effect (1)

Damocles the Elder (1133333) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017211)

So after reading this, how many 12-18 year olds who've never heard of Usenet are going to say "Another place to pirate stuff from? SWEET DEAL!"

So how does this work for .... (2, Interesting)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017271)

...someone who put their own stuff on usenet and then someone comes along and falsely claims copyright infringment to the ISP and teh ISP takes it down.

Does the genuine originator ever get notified and given an opportunity to counter?

Re:So how does this work for .... (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017555)

Yes.

Re:So how does this work for .... (1)

Pyramid (57001) | more than 6 years ago | (#21019871)

"My user number is probably lower than yours."

I doubt it.

Re:So how does this work for .... (1)

geekboy642 (799087) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021071)

At a certain time about 10 years ago, my 'net connection was used by "persons unknown" to upload a binary file to a newsgroup. It was noticed, complained about--presumably by the copyright holder--and I was threatened with having my newsgroup account terminated. So yeah, the original poster gets notified, or at least did.
</anecdote>

"They don't host it!" (2, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017283)

I see a lot of people saying "They don't host the files!"

This is absolutely wrong. They may not be the initial point that the file enters the network, but they DO host the files on their own servers there -entire- time that it's available to their customers. Every usenet provider does this. It's how the entire system works.

Each provider can choose which groups they will bother to handle (it used to be common for free services not to handle the 'alt.' newsgroups) and they -can- remove anything from that server that they choose. It wouldn't be fun to find exactly what the RIAA has requested a takedown for without specific post IDs, but it can be done.

Places that don't host the files are merely indexing services (like newzbin.com) and truly do not host the files. It's just a list of the post IDs that you need to grab what you are looking for from usenet.

I've never heard of a usenet provider that has removed partial content... Only entire groups, and never (that I've heard of) because someone asked them to.

So while it is theoretically possible for this law to protect them, they've never complied with it and it won't do them a bit of good.

It won't do the RIAA any good, either, though... Hundreds or thousands of servers all over the world mirror the same information from 3 to 200 days... They would have to individually ask for the files to be removed from each of them individually.

(Before anyone objects, I know they aren't stored as 'files', but that's irrelevant to the conversation.)

Number of takedown notices could be huge... (1)

BUL2294 (1081735) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017379)

For those who don't understand how Usenet works, files are broken up into messages (IIRC, in a 7-bit format) and then transmitted. A Usenet reader of any recent vintage takes these messages and combines them, so you can get the particular (usually) RAR file. Now, most people think that killing one message (one file could be comprised of hundreds) is enough to kill the file, but with the advent of PAR utilities, the file could be easily fixed...

So, for this to be effective against any one program/video/MP3/etc., you'd have to send takedown notices for hundreds of messages. That task, on either end of the spectrum, would have to be daunting!

This is beginning of the end of the US-based news carriers...

Kinda Sad (2, Insightful)

Enoxice (993945) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017397)

Despite the fact that this makes some modicum of sense, any sort of legal authority this is brought to isn't going to understand it.

What is, to us, a distributed and self-replicating system of nodes to distribute information (in the form of text "articles") worldwide is, to a judge, a website that sells access to copyrighted materials and refuses to remove them.

It's the same sort of roadblock torrent sites run into: computer illiteracy. Though, to be fair, it's not like judges should be required by law to be well versed in the ways of technology (though a little bit of knowledge would help), steps should be made to ensure that trials/hearings/negotiations/etc are presided over by someone who understands or can be made to understand all of the nuances in the discussion.

Re:Kinda Sad (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 6 years ago | (#21018381)

### What is, to us, a distributed and self-replicating system of nodes to distribute information (in the form of text "articles") worldwide is,

In all the decade that I have used the Usenet, I have never encountered a free provide that actually provided the *.binary.* groups, in fact most people considered posting binary to the Usenet a pretty stupid idea and in many Usenet hierarchies its not even allowed in the first place. Usenet.com, Giganews and friends really don't look to me much like a harmless Usenet provider, but more like a for-pay Warez Server, that just happens to not use FTP but NNTP to move the files around.

Re:Kinda Sad (1)

Enoxice (993945) | more than 6 years ago | (#21018695)

Personally I rarely use Usenet for binaries - it's just too clunky since my main reader is for just that ("reading", not grabbing binaries), and the binary functions of the program are clunky at best.

That being said, I feel like binaries were a natural evolution of Usenet's purpose of information sharing (copyright issues notwithstanding). And I agree that the expressly binary providers are a lot like warez sites, however a suit against one provider (especially one called "usenet") will be bad PR for Usenet in general and may set some bad legal precedents.

Re:Kinda Sad (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020413)

What is, to us, a distributed and self-replicating system of nodes to distribute information (in the form of text "articles") worldwide is, to a judge, a website that sells access to copyrighted materials and refuses to remove them. It's the same sort of roadblock torrent sites run into: computer illiteracy.

The computer literate does not pretend that binary content cannot be encoded as text. That "articles" cannot be quickly and easily combined and decoded as movies, mp3s, etc.

What the judge sees when he opens a USENET client is a connection to a unique USENET service. Each service has its own policies concerning what groups will be carried, data retention and so on.

This is not so far distant from the management of a website as a geek would like to think.

In this case Usenet.com is the host and Usenet.com is a commercial enterprise advertising ready access to pirated content as a way of attracting subscribers.

Educating Judges (1)

zildgulf (1116981) | more than 6 years ago | (#21021905)

How many times have we heard ruling that essentially said "ban the interwebs" because some judge made a decision without adequate (or any) knowledge of the technology involved?

When judges are judging technology based lawsuits, why won't they ask for "Friend of the Court" briefs explaining the technology and what are practical steps that can be done (i.e. reasonable steps that any competent system admin can do). After all, in this society, no one can know everything of every technology. If you study law for your entire life, how would you innately know about the complexities of electronic communication today?

What do you think?

Re:Kinda Sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21022115)

In europe, the judge appoints a computer expert to assist him.

In USA, is it different then?
Does the judge pretend to understand it all?

I claim prior art (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 6 years ago | (#21017893)

In the late 1970s I was on ARPANET when I was a student at SFU (in fact, I was the Computer Science Rep to Student Council there, running on a slogan of A Rabbit On Every Streetcorner, as a feminist candidate).

I claim prior art. I advertised that I wanted to sell one of my textbooks when I dropped a course.

RIAA owes me money.

All MP3's Are Infringing (2, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#21018853)

What I notice is that while Usenet.com promoted -- stupidly perhaps in today's legal climate -- access to many MP3 files, I didn't see anywhere they they specifically said that these were illegal, copyrighted, RIAA member MP3 files.

The attitude of the RIAA appears to be that any and all MP3 files are by their very nature illegal, and that they deserve huge woges of money for anyone who has ever touched one. This, of course, is not true at all -- except in the mind of the RIAA.

If anyone at all is going to kill the rich culture of this country, it won't be the filesharers. It will be the RIAA, and copyrights extended to infinity -- and beyond!

I thought most if not all of Usenet is encoded. (3, Insightful)

popeye44 (929152) | more than 6 years ago | (#21020143)

Am I mistaken?

Maybe i'm missing a point or two here. But it seems to me in order for anyone including the RIAA to define the content of Usenet they would have to decode the binary "and probably have to have a special reader for text" messages. UUencode YENC and MIME seem to be the major encoding types and seeing as the servers store purely code in an unidentifiable format there is no way they could actually SEE what is posted without downloading it and re-encoding it back to a compiled file. Movies/audio etc are all converted TO ascii and then back.

You cannot watch a stream coming into a usenet server and say it's an MP3 or MPEG or AVI If memory serves me. It's possible the subject line would be clear/plain text but more than that is encoding.

Correct me if I am wrong.. I've been using Usenet since 97 but it's been since like 98 since I investigated what made it work.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>