Giganews DMCA Rampage: Embrace 100% data loss.

[zot]

But consider that just as you only have the word of a VPN company that it won't log your activities or reveal them to law enforcement agencies you only have the word of a Usenet company that it won't do likewise.

Although all usenet servers log posts(uploads) --mainly to fight spam-- it would be suicidal for any usenet company to log its customer's downloads, as that information would definitely be used against them in any lawsuit claiming that the company "profits from copyright infringement".

Download logs serve as the 'smoking gun' that would prove the company facilitates copyright infringement - destroying any possible hope of the company arguing in court that customers are probably just downloading freeware Linux CDs.

And if that logic was not self-evident to usenet providers, they can look at the example of Newsfeeds (usenet.com/newsgroups.com), a company which was stupid enough to collect download logs (and even stupider to get caught deleting those logs and pretending they never existed) and ended up being exterminated by a RIAA lawsuit -- no doubt due in part to the very existence of those damning download logs.

So are there any usenet providers who are not succumbing to the takedowns at alt.binaries.xbox360?
I know for sure newsdemon is taking articles down.

NewsDemon is a Highwinds reseller. Highwinds and Giganews are the primary ones getting hit with massive DMCA takedowns. Any other (back-end) provider should be a huge improvement.

[temisturk]

Exactly. Logic is logic: it doesn't change depending on whether a company provides usenet access, seedboxes or vpn's. So we agree that seedboxes and vpn's are just as safe as usenet providers and that anyone who uses any services on the internet should check the reputation of any companies they want to do business with.

[zot]

So we agree that seedboxes and vpn's are just as safe as usenet providers

No, we do not agree. I consider downloading from usenet much less risky than downloading on P2P/Bittorrent using a VPN or seedbox.

One main difference is that unlike Usenet, in P2P there is no such thing as a "passive downloader" - everyone is essentially an uploader (even if such uploading is disabled) whose IP address (whether actual or proxied) is publicly visible to everyone else connected to the network. A bittorrent swarm can easily be monitored, every download counted, and the IP address (traceable or not) of every downloader recorded by hostile forces. With IP address in hand, the copyright cops can then pressure a VPN operator to reveal the person behind this proxied IP address.

In contrast, no one knows how many people --if any-- downloaded a particular file posted to usenet. (Other than possibly a usenet provider itself, who has a heavy financial incentive "not to know" - for reasons I detailed in my last post)

This is the main reason why, in my opinion, the highly public action of downloading on Bittorrent behind a VPN should be considered inherently less safe/anonymous than the highly private action of downloading on usenet.

[mjmacky]

This is the main reason why, in my opinion, the highly public action of downloading on Bittorrent behind a VPN should be considered inherently less safe/anonymous than the highly private action of downloading on usenet.

Most cases brought out against anybody targets them for distribution of copyrighted material. That's where prosecution focuses since the damages that could be sought for "download only" infringement wouldn't be financially viable (except for the threatening letter scams). Being just a downloader would keep you relatively safer despite even the possibility of download logs. That's the only point I thought you were missing.

[Beck38]

Of course, when the movie mafia gets caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they get to go 'judge shopping' to find someone to throw out the complaint against them.

http://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-...quests-111109/

I have a legal case (fraud) that's been going on for over 30 years now, will never be settled as the state prosecutor that originally refused to allow the case to go forward is now the State Atty. General (R., running for governor), but the states arguments fall flat in every court but it keeps getting sent back to the lower court(s). They keep saying 'settle this out of court' but I want to see the people to a 'perp walk', period. They can't force me to withdraw the criminal complaint, and as long as it exists, it remains a thorn in the side of the criminals every time they try to 're-hatch' their plots.

There is only one thing that gets these thieves attention, whether it's bank fraud or anything else, and that's hard time in the 'big house'. Anything less is the 'cost of doing business'. See resent news on judges going after the banks, and the state/federal prosecutors refusing to indict. Same crap.

[temisturk]

One main difference is that unlike Usenet, in P2P there is no such thing as a "passive downloader" - everyone is essentially an uploader (even if such uploading is disabled) whose IP address (whether actual or proxied) is publicly visible to everyone else connected to the network.

If you're using a VPN you are not publicly visible to everyone. Only the VPN company knows what you're doing. Just as only the Usenet company knows what you download from them. It is exactly the same. Your argument comes down to "Usenet companies won't sell out their customers because then they would have no customers but VPN companies will sell out their customers because...um...err...well...um...it's very sunny today isn't it?"

A bittorrent swarm can easily be monitored, every download counted, and the IP address (traceable or not) of every downloader recorded by hostile forces. With IP address in hand, the copyright cops can then pressure a VPN operator to reveal the person behind this proxied IP address.

Sure, in theory, but it's never happened and probably never will happen because it's far easier to catch people who haven't protected their identities and it's far far easier to spread rumours and try to scare people off filesharing period. But if you want to put up hypothetical extremes then it is possible hostile forces could pressure a Usenet operator to reveal their logs or the ISP of the Usenet operator to reveal their logs or your ISP to reveal their logs. I accept it isn't likely but, again, that's the same as in the case of them pressuring VPN's.

In contrast, no one knows how many people --if any-- downloaded a particular file posted to usenet. (Other than possibly a usenet provider itself, who has a heavy financial incentive "not to know" - for reasons I detailed in my last post)

You did. But you have conspicuously failed to explain why VPN providers don't have the same "heavy finanicial incentives".

Most cases brought out against anybody targets them for distribution of copyrighted material.

I agree. But, firstly, almost all such cases have failed. And by "almost all" I mean that there have literally just a dozen odd convictions or judgements handed down against filesharers anywhere in the world, ever. There are lots of threats of criminal or civil prosecution. And lots and lots and lots of headlines. And lots of people who give in to the bullying tactics. But if you look through the smoke there is very very little fire.

Also, laws differ around the world and over time, and the tactics of the copyright cops change over time. I certainly agree that bittorrent is receiving more of their attention at the moment but that doesn't mean they're totally ignoring usenet or that they won't give it more attention in future.

[A_T]

I don't think usenet is invulnerable but I think it's unlikely we'll ever be in a position where a copyright holder can approach a usenet provider saying a copyrighted file was posted on your server, you must hand over your logs so we can see who downloaded it.

[sandman_1]

With Usenet, you can just download. How are they going to know what you are downloading especially if it is encrypted? They can't really without breaking the law. Uploading is the key here and when you are torrenting you are doing just that. Now instead of downloading copyrighted material, you are distributing it which is the bigger no no. That is what these file sharing cases focus on because frankly it is more financially viable and easier. Also if you upload to Usenet, you do it once. You aren't in some swarm of hundreds or thousands of other file sharers, which just adds to the damages if you get taken to court. To me, it is leaps and bounds better than torrenting, just my opinion. If you like torrenting, then stick with it. More power to ya...

[temisturk]

I don't think usenet is invulnerable

Yes! That's really the only point I'm trying to make. I don't think that VPN's are invulnerable either. I'm just talking about relative risk. And I'm saying that VPN's and Usenet are both relatively safe compared to downloading without any precautions at all.

With Usenet, you can just download. How are they going to know what you are downloading especially if it is encrypted?

I'm sorry but first see my reply above and secondly try to see how your question applies equally to downloading via a VPN. They won't know what you're downloading or who you are unless they can force the Usenet or VPN company to tell them. And if they can force one company then they force another.

[mjmacky]

In contrast, no one knows how many people --if any-- downloaded a particular file posted to usenet. (Other than possibly a usenet provider itself, who has a heavy financial incentive "not to know" - for reasons I detailed in my last post)

You did. But you have conspicuously failed to explain why VPN providers don't have the same "heavy finanicial incentives".

You're misinterpreting his point. With a torrent, they have your IP address, and if it belongs to a VPN service, they have a known target/source with which to identify you (communication logs aren't even necessary, it's very much similar to asking your ISP for user information based on IP address, which might come as a secondary step).

The case with Usenet is that logs aren't categorized with each post. Basically, to find out which IP grabbed a particular post, the entire logs would have to be searched that matches requests and downloads with a particular post ID. Basically they can't even get a single IP address without the legwork of the Usenet Service Provider. And ALL OF THAT hinges on the unlikely possibility that they've retained all their logs. You see how much further the gap is, and why this is not equivalent to VPN?