111–120 of 137 posts
There is NO such thing as priracy, there is only sharing of property between people. When I buy something I own it, no matter what those fools say, and when I own it, I copy it if I like!
you can bet your bottom this fact''Federation Against Copyright Theft Limited''will be into all nzb providers now by attacking the index list making sites like nzb matrix take down massive amounts of copyrighted movies and other copyrighted items, changes in the usenet indexing this looks bad all round for us downloading they cant get the server providers so they will go after the next best thing the index system tha…
And why aren't they able to get the server providers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has it actually been established that merely linking to copyrighted content is illegal in the United States? I'm not trying to troll, just genuinely curious. My technical understanding of this could be incorrect, but it seems to me that there is a meaningful difference between a BitTorrent tracker actively coordinating copyright infringing downloads vs. a website like NZBMatrix hosting nothing but static links to ano…
The NET act criminalizes any willful "copyright infringement" (the term used in the act) so long as it's done for financial gain. Contributory or vicarious liability for copyright infringement for linking is well established. At any rate, services like these rely on the DMCA Safe Harbor provision. Regardless of whether the potential liability is civil or criminal, you can't have actual knowledge of infringing activit…
It seems to me that the only difference between Google and NZBMatrix et al is that the media companies like one more than the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can always just upload the nzb file to Usenet and reference that.
That's usually where the indexing sites get them from in the first place. The issue comes when you're a client that's not indexing continuously; downloading billions of headers to try and find a particular NZB is a mammoth task.
Question for those with Usenet know how. When downloading raw headers, I have observed a convention where the title is a random string of letters and numbers, and within the post are for example 50 rars and 10 pars. How are consumers 'decoding' the title so they know what they are getting? Does the uploader provide a translation? Or can the 'real title' be recovered programmatically? Many thanks.
Can you give an example?
"2TU4K75C6Z" (45 rars, 9 pars)
And here's one from a.b.multimedia...
"DTTBiAp23.101.by.NYCrules" (14 rars, 11 pars)
no .nfo included and no way to know what's inside. Does anybody know how people are decoding these titles into meaningful information?
Despite being 99% illicit content, could somebody explain why this is not a case for Safe Harbour? Is this principle enshrined in any law at all, or is it just some neutrality idyll that we assume others share? *Thought it was part of the DMCA
The "safe harbor" includes more requirements than responding to take-down requests. In particular, the service provider must "not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing", and "in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent". In other words, though you don't have an acti…
>Once this notice is completed we are left with an impossible task of policing our indexing bots. Even then it won't stop there, there will be follow-up notices etc.
This seems to me like they're being told to actively police automatically-indexed content after this notice is processed?
I'm not sure how provable that 'knowledge of infringement' clause is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nauseating. Piracy killed the real Usenet, and now pirates are upset that enforcement is killing the goofy little playground they built inside its corpse. When I was 18, I ran a competitive (on the Freenix leaderboard) full-feed Usenet server for the ISP I worked at. Every ISP in the world could have provided full-feed Usenet access, but for the assholes who loaded the system down with ASCII-encoded binaries. Even wh…
I was also running a news server for my school and an ISP around the same time (1994-1996). The alt.binaries hierarchy was a constant headache. The total data flow and storage requirements were already about 10X the rest of Usenet. We had to manually tweak refuse lists when the disk drives filled up. I wasn't still around, but I expect the second wave of automated binary posting/retrieval tools in the late 90's proba…
Move the site to TOR and let digital copyright enforcement cops try to figure that one out. All they can do it push it completely underground and once the site is on TOR they have zero recourse or means to track down the operator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give an example?
Here's one from a.b.boneless... "2TU4K75C6Z" (45 rars, 9 pars) And here's one from a.b.multimedia... "DTTBiAp23.101.by.NYCrules" (14 rars, 11 pars) no .nfo included and no way to know what's inside. Does anybody know how people are decoding these titles into meaningful information?
"291112_08_29" (60 rars)
There are lots of these and they are interesting because the first part suggests a date, 29/11/12, and the second part suggests a sequential number. The size is almost 6 gig.