hi all,
just wondered what peoples views were following the ruling of the riaa case over usenet.com. will we start seeing providers get closed down? or an end to usenet completely? or is usenet going to continue as it has been?
thank you
Printable View
hi all,
just wondered what peoples views were following the ruling of the riaa case over usenet.com. will we start seeing providers get closed down? or an end to usenet completely? or is usenet going to continue as it has been?
thank you
with the obama administration running wild as they are (bunch of fu**ing charlatans) , i wouldnt put it past them;
the good news however is usenet.com got in trouble because they blatantly advertised their service as a source of warez, as well as encouraging it on their website, and through their support reps.
giganews and astraweb at least do not boast such claims. im no lawyer, but it would seem to me they are going to be safe for some time, especially if they comply with DMCA takedown notices from the studios who request them.
but even dmca's wont stop us from sharing; we'll just obfruscate the rar/zip filenames, and password protect them, if it really comes down to it.
:)
lets hope so...would that be the same for newsdemon etc? usenet was about years before digital mp3 and video flooded it. and isn't usenet similar to the internet, by hosts and servers not just in US but in UK, Sweden, Netherlands etc? surely the US can not govern the other countries as well, so saying that can usenet ever disappear?
the reason i specifically stated the USA was because we are home to the largest usenet farms (providers) in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by djkemp1
the big 3:
Highwinds,
Giganews
Astraweb.
just about any other "provider" you run into are resellers, so its not like their are hundreds of server farms as it would seem, since usnet resellers are a dime a dozen.
point is, if the usenet farms (USA) take a hit; usenet as a whole loses a huge percentage of content, and user-base which would definitely put a damper on the contined growth of other non-USA farms.
in effect it would seem like usenet "disappeared" but it would most likely still have a footprint in foreign countries...
I predict that the "NZB" file itself will become encrypted.Quote:
Originally Posted by ericab
I think that in the not-too-distant future the "NZB" could be encrypted as well, so that the post IDs will stay hidden, making it all-but-impossible to trace where on usenet the file is actually located. And since the exact location of the articles on the usenet server can't be determined, the files can't be deleted. :P
Of course, a debugger/disassembler could be used to break the "NZB" encryption (as one was used to reverse the CSS encryption on DVDs) but cracking encryption this way would be illegal in the USA and other countries.
The main problem is that proprietary newsreader software would be required to read an encrypted "NZB" :dry:
just had an idea...
how about an application which decentralizes the propagation of nzb files to the end user, so relying on nzb search engines wouldn't be a thing of the past. (especially good since sites like newzbin are under active legal litigation...eventually the sites may be forced to shutdown due to *aiding* in the act of downloading intellectual property)
the above (decentralized nzb downloads) coupled with encrypting the identifiers contained within the NZB file (as zot has suggested), rar/zip name obfuscation and rar/zip encryption seems like an amazing solution.
We survived quite well before the creation of NZB's. If they were to disappear tomorrow, we'd go back to reading the headers.
Usenet is distributed among a large, constantly changing conglomeration of servers that store and forward messages to one
another (distributed content). Taking a file off of one server, does not remove it from all of them (even if the server in question
is the one it was originally posted to). The same method applies to nzb's.
An nzb created at Newzbin would point to servers in the Netherlands. An nzb on the same content, created on a Giganews
account, would point to a server in the USA. Encrypted nzb's would serve no purpose.
Obama could shut down Usenet (in the US) if he choose to, and that's the only way I believe it could happen. Giganews has
offshore servers. Other providers do as well.
Anonymous Usenet is coming. Patience.
An encrypted "NZB" - if such a thing were ever developed - would serve two purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wwwildthing
By masking the actual article numbers (post IDs) that comprise the file, thereby hiding the file's location, an encrypted "NZB" would help:
1. eliminate the possibility of files being deleted from the server (due to takedown requests)
2. hide the identity of the poster (the post headers can't be gleaned for information since the actual post IDs are unknown)
The downside is that an encrypted "NZB" could no longer be an open standard, as it is now, but would need to be a proprietary (closed source) format that could only be read by a proprietary (closed source) newsreader.
Some providers samller may fall under the heat from the RIAA (I doubt it though), but the larger providers like Giganews/Astraweb won't be taken down lightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by djkemp1
As for Usenet getting taken down completely I HIGHLY doubt it. Usenet isn't just for binaries, it's other use is a discussion board, so this argument will be used in many defenses.
1) The 'files' are spread across dozens (if not hundreds) of servers. Removing it from one server, does not remove it from the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by zotAn encrypted "NZB" - if such a thing were ever developed - would serve two purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wwwildthing
By masking the actual article numbers (post IDs) that comprise the file, thereby hiding the file's location, an encrypted "NZB" would help:
1. eliminate the possibility of files being deleted from the server (due to takedown requests)
2. hide the identity of the poster (the post headers can't be gleaned for information since the actual post IDs are unknown)
The downside is that an encrypted "NZB" could no longer be an open standard, as it is now, but would need to be a proprietary (closed source) format that could only be read by a proprietary (closed source) newsreader.
2) Posters have been hiding their idenity since Day One. That was about 10 years before the Internet became available to the public.
I pulled the following nzb from 2 different indexing sites - Total.Rugby.02.07.09.WS.PDTV.XviD-FTP
NZBMatrix - [email protected] (somewhere in the Netherlands)
Poster - [email protected]
NZBs(dot)Org - [email protected]
Poster - [email protected]
A 'ping' of bin-reg.net returns a 'host not found' response.
Again, the 'headers' are sent in plain text and clearly readable by any usenet client. Encrypting the nzb's (which are created from the header information) would serve no purpose.
How many *backend* providers have more than 300 days binary retention? I count just three. And maybe 3 or 4 others that have 150-300 days retention. (Most usenet "providers" being actually resellers who access the same few backend servers.) High-retention usenet servers are quite rare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wwwildthing
I could be mistaken, but I believe that in the early years (before about 1995 when pay-providers emerged) all usenet posts included an IP address.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wwwildthing
"[email protected]" is the message-ID - that's what identifies the posted article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wwwildthing
77.247.178.113 is the IP address of www.NFOrce.nl- not the poster -- But you are correct, NFOrce.nl is indeed "somewhere in the Netherlands" :lol:
I thought it was common knowledge that most people who post on usenet use a fake email address these days. (unless they want a mailbox buried in spam.)
FYI: Here's the *complete* information that I get on that same poster:
Unlike ISP servers, most pay-to-subscribe usenet providers don't publish the poster's IP address - but they keep internal records of all posters' identities (to track down spammers, etc). Therefore, usenet posters are generally not anonymous.Code:Path: s03-b37!num01.iad!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newsfeed2.ip.tiscali.net!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news.wiretrip.org!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.201.147.80.MISMATCH!news.astraweb.com!border3.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (teh)
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.multimedia, alt.binaries.tv
Subject: #a.b.mm@efnet - req 83751 - Total.Rugby.02.07.09.WS.PDTV.XviD-FTP - [04/28] - ftp-tr020709.nfo (1/1)
X-Newsposter: newsmangler 0.02 (python-vanilla) - http://www.madcowdisease.org/mcd/newsmangler
Date: 03 Jul 2009 17:04:08 GMT
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3359c7bd.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=hH2BYmdKhM6J5c6\GR85Z>L?0kYOcDh@:Ykk[:k07I@;6BKBbG`K@B8Oce7HWKnCC=OIV^[?9;h12B7>@J1GSf]3
Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.binaries.multimedia:394249165 alt.binaries.tv:311272920
X-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:04:09 UTC (s03-b37)
Again, I'll quote ericab's suggestion that I commented on earlier:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wwwildthing
Headers are worthless if the subject/file you're looking for has a cryptic name -- and especially so if the file is password protected.Quote:
Originally Posted by ericab
That's mighty pretty formatting there Zot. I was already aware of all that, but I'm sure the newbies appreciate it.
Rapidshare has alot of password-protected files, but that's never stopped them from being pulled. In fact, it probably makes them more noticable (especially to a virus scanner).
If you encrypt a Usenet post, your drawing a bulls-eye on the target. Encrypted nzb's won't solve the problem either, it'll just complicate the procedure of downloading, even more than it already is. Every usenet client has to be modified and extensively tested, and the whole network upgraded to support the new encoding format.
Even if all that happened... and your downloading encrypted files, via an encrypted nzb... and you can get the password to the downloader (which will probably need to be sent in the clear - nulling any advantage created by all that encryption)... it's not gonna be hard to convince a jury, that your doing something you shouldn't be.
See... it's not the content, but rather how you access it that needs to be fixed... the goal being to prevent another Jamie Thomas-type event.
Anonymous Usenet is coming.
how do you find out this info about an upload?Quote:
Originally Posted by zot
All traditional news readers list that information. However, most binary grabbers and NZB downloaders do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duronhow do you find out this info about an upload?Quote:
Originally Posted by zot