Giganews DMCA Rampage: Embrace 100% data loss.

[temisturk]

If this is what you are saying in response, that means you are still very confused about both how Usenet works and how it's completely different than VPN. All the information that would un-confuse you is contained in this thread, but here's something supplementary (with explanation). It's a privacy policy of a VPN service:

Oh, don't worry, I actually understand very well how usenet works from a technical viewpoint and I've a pretty good idea of how it stands from a global legal point of view. What I don't understand is fanboys of any persuasion who are convinced that their personal solution of choice is now and forever perfect and that every other possible solution is irredeemably and totally flawed. I'm not insisting that VPN's are perfect. I'm simply saying that they're good enough.

As for the quote, that's one policy of one VPN. A notoriously untrustworthy one. Here's another, from a famously trustworthy one:

Ipredator is a company incorporated in Sweden. The service is basically a Swedish broadband subscription offered over the Internet. This means that the legal framework mainly consists of the The Electronic Communications Act 2003 389. What will this mean if:

· Swedish authorities or,
· Other organization or individuals demands access to information protected by Ipredator?

Ipredator Safe Surf enjoys the strongest legal protection possible under Swedish Law because of the service type (pre-paid flat-rate service). This means that Ipredator do not have to keep an ordinary customer database (to be able handle transactions etc.). This is of importance if forced to hand over information.

If Swedish authorities can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have a case for demanding subscription information from Ipredator (they have to be of the opinion that if convicted the user will be imprisoned – fined not enough). .

Ipredator then have to hand over the subscription information entered by you (but that’s all). Ipredator do not store any subscribtion information about you except what you entered yourself when signing up for the Ipredator Safe Surf service.

For Swedish authorities to force Ipredator to hand over “traffic data” including your Ipredator IP at a specific point in time, they will have to prove a case with the minimum sentence of two years imprisonment.

Regarding inquires from other parties than Swedish authorities Ipredator will never hand over any kind of information.

That is a promise of very solid legal protection, particularly for anyone living outside of Sweden, from a team with a proven track record of not backing down in the face of repeated legal harassment.

And what do we find when we consider the legal policies of a usenet provider:

You agree not to violate copyright laws by transferring copyrighted works through our system or by causing them to be transferred or stored without the permission of the copyright holder. Posting of copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright holder can be grounds for suspension of posting or termination of your account.

That's from giganews. Just to make it crystal clear what they're saying, anyone anywhere in the world ever downloading (or uploading) copyrighted material is in breach of their terms of service and liable to have their account terminated summarily. Now I'm not saying that will happen. Obviously it doesn't happen very often at all. But it exemplifies the double standard being used here. Find the lowest possible quality legal ToS of a VPN provider and insist it is a basis for mistrusting all VPN providers, while ignoring the fact that the legal ToS of Usenet providers states that the only thing the service is used for is specifically not allowed."

What you need to notice here is that they retain who you are and which IP addresses you've used for the past 2 years. They do not log your activity, and even if they did, that's not what gets you into trouble. A DMCA investigator would already know your ACTIVITY from monitoring a torrent, all they need from the VPN is your identity. And you would find in the privacy policies of many VPN providers that they do log your identity and comply with legal requests.

And I point out yet again that, yes, that might work in theory. But the DMCA investigator would have to mount and win legal action in Sweden to get to that information (if IPREDator were the VPN being used) as well as mount and win legal action wherever you lived. It's simply not practical, which is why it has never been done. Thinking of the worst possible thing that could possibly happen and using that as a basis for mud slinging, ignoring the fact that it has never been done and that it's ridiculously unlikely to believe that it ever would be done is a very weak argument.

@temisturk - Don't know if this helps, but if your looking for evidence and proof positive of how it is so much easier to get caught torrenting over VPN take a look here - Giganews has been handing out IPs of anyone has been torrenting through their VPN because the copyright mafia have been able to collect enough visible information of download activity through the torrent - then all they need is the identity of the torrent offender and apparently for Giganews that is no problem

I'm not actually sure whether you think that helps or undermines my case, but since it helps then I'll thank you anyway.

So, in summarising that thread (which, lets be clear, is only a thread on an internet forum not a report from a reputable news service so it needs to be treated with a pinch of salt), Giganews and VyperVPN are two separate companies. VyperVPN doesn't appear to have outed anyone to the authorities or to have forwarded infringement notices to its customers. Giganews also doesn't appear to have outed anyone, but it has forwarded an infringement notice. +1 for Vyper but it's worrying that it is partnered with such a legally complaisant company.

Temisturk's argument (as I understand it) is that all the VPNs that claim not to keep logs are 100% trustworthy, and when put to the test, would choose to fall on their swords rather than betray a customer's faith.

You don't understand it. Or, more likely, you do and you know that the only way you can undermine it is by misrepresenting it.

Those inclined to believe this theory might want to recall that a few years ago the US telecommunications companies were all willing to let the NSA conduct massive wiretaps (basically entire trunks were recorded) on customers' telephone lines without a warrant -- an action which was absolutely illegal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and other laws.

But despite numerous examples of companies willing to break not just promises, but even to outright break the law when pressured by authorities, temisturk wants us to believe that VPNs are somehow different: i.e., no VPN that promises anonymity (even those that put it in writing in their TOS contract) would ever -even if up against extreme pressure and legal threats- secretly log users and turn them in, therefore breaking both its promises and its TOS contract --which unlike warrant-less wiretapping, is not a criminal offense.

Not at all. You're the one claiming that Usenet providers are totally beyond the law. I think they and VPN providers are both subject to legal and illegal pressure.

[Hypatia]

downloading (or uploading)

Nope. It is only about uploading.
Customers of usenet providers that download are 100% protected.

And yes GN shouldnt be used by uploaders
There are other NNTP providers that dont lick DMCA's mafia ass due to ,for instance, their whereabouts(SIngapore )

You're the one claiming that Usenet providers are totally beyond the law

he didnt say that.

[zot]

Just wanted to bash GN a bit more... lol

as a heavy uploader my main complaint about giganews\supernews is not really DMCA(if we dont take into account console games that is, if it gets worse on the other hand... well..)... but the sad fact that they actively pursue on behalf of copyright mafia those ones who upload stuff

At first you have posting privileges suspended until you log in to your control panel and click somewhere stating that you wont do that anymore.

If you get caught the second time then either you account get completely blocked or posting privileges banned forever


this happened several times to me( i used temporary CC to register)

one account was totally blocked, other two were deprived of posting privileges

Per the DMCA, a service provider receiving a copyright complaint must also allow the accused person to dispute it -- which means putting it back online while turning over to the accuser the defendant's identity without needing a court order. Though I would suspect that Giganews most likely irrevocably deletes anything it gets a claim for -- no questions asked.

If you only use the account behind a 3rd-party VPN (or maybe anyone dumb/naive enough to upload risky things using an expensive prepaid account) it might be worth considering making a counter-claim, if nothing more than just to see what happens. I've never got penalized or called out for uploading anything, but then I've never posted recent Hollywood material either.

I was surprised that I was able to max-out my upload speed using Binload when it first opened (a lot better than Blocknews/readnews, which has always had somewhat flaky upload) but I don't know what the situation is like now.

You don't understand it. Or, more likely, you do and you know that the only way you can undermine it is by misrepresenting it.

I must say that I'm shocked and outraged that you would dare accuse me of resorting to the same kind of straw-man arguments and troll-baiting tactics that have been your trademark since day-one.

[temisturk]

Nope. It is only about uploading.

No it isn't. Here is the clue: "or"

"You agree not to violate copyright laws by transferring copyrighted works through our system

or by causing them to be transferred or stored without the permission of the copyright holder. "

The second clause clearly refers to uploading, and it is specifically contrasted with the first clause which therefore relates to something other than uploading. The something, is downloading.

They also say, a little above the first quote

You are responsible for determining the legal status of any intellectual property you use or duplicate through our system. Some of the material available on the network is copyrighted, and some of it may have been distributed in violation of copyright laws.

The "or duplicate" directly implies copying.

And they also say

We will cooperate with law enforcement officials and with other system administrators in the legitimate investigation of suspicious activity.

But as I've stated before, shredding ToS's is easy to do but doesn't really mean anything. What matters is reality. And just like Usenet downloaders, VPN users are very well protected.

The key point in this entire thread is that despite all the rhetoric, nobody has ever been able to find any reputable report of anyone ever being convicted of or sued for downloading via a VPN.

he didnt say that.

Forget about him, you just said that.

Customers of usenet providers that download are 100% protected.

Anyway, I'm glad you replied, since you were the one I originally offered my advice to. It's good advice actually but if you're determined to live in denial that anything other than usenet can ever offer relative safety then that's your loss not mine. Good luck completing those files.

[Hypatia]

youve got a point but you must have a very twisted mind to interpret what you quoted as

Usenet providers are totally beyond the law

that way

They are not. WHich i supported earlier referring to uploading and freezing accounts due to dmca violation(uploading stuff)
Were they above the law we wouldnt even bother with dmca, copyrights etc- CP lovers- welcome abroad.

To operate on the US soil or in any other country a company is bound to obey certain laws.And im not talking even about copyright issues
The statement "above the law" covers everything, mind you

Actually usenet providers are protected by this very law to some extent but, alas, some of them decided to do even more than actually required.(no one outside your comfy office/your tech support can prove whether you disabled a particular account or not,whether this person continues to violate DMCA or not due to the fact how usenet works unlike torrents)

Also i didnt even mention that "anything other than usenet cant ever offer relative safety" so im puzzled with your remark

[mjmacky]

@turk, I think everyone else already covered my replies, emphasizing on the uploader's dilemma and the downloader's isolation. Also, you're the only one who seems to be getting the impression that newsgroups are beyond the law. All of us are describing to you their interaction with legal bodies/requests. It feels like you're not reading our responses completely or correctly.

The key point is that if you upload content, you're targeted. If you download content without uploading anything, you're currently being left alone, and will be left alone for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. The only cases being brought and actions being taken are against those who have or continue to distribute (upload) copyrighted content. Therefore, you have to put your faith into a VPN. When it comes to NSPs, I really don't have to concern myself with faith in their promised behavior. They will state that it's your responsibility to determine the legality of content you download and that it is not permitted, otherwise they are left with the liability.

One has to be more concerned about each of the provider's behaviors if they plan to upload content. If you are looking to download things here and there, it's a matter of completion rate, price and price structuring, speed, and retention that guides your decision over which provider, privacy concerns don't really factor in. GN's sale of VPN service with their usenet access is a bit of a joke, unless you plan to use the VPN for different things like accessing U.S. market locked services (i.e. nothing that will get you into serious legal trouble).

[zot]

I'm wondering if I'm the only one starting to suspect that temisturk might be Frankfu - another notable die-hard troll -- trying on a different hat?

[temisturk]

@turk, I think everyone else already covered my replies, emphasizing on the uploader's dilemma and the downloader's isolation. Also, you're the only one who seems to be getting the impression that newsgroups are beyond the law. All of us are describing to you their interaction with legal bodies/requests. It feels like you're not reading our responses completely or correctly.

I'm reading them correctly. The problem is that they're defending something which I'm not attacking and I'm allowing myself to be drawn into discussing things which aren't actually relevant. I don't believe that Usenet is unsafe. On the contrary, I believe it to be safe for many of the same reasons I believe VPN's to be safe.

The key point is that if you upload content, you're targeted. If you download content without uploading anything, you're currently being left alone, and will be left alone for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. The only cases being brought and actions being taken are against those who have or continue to distribute (upload) copyrighted content. Therefore, you have to put your faith into a VPN. When it comes to NSPs, I really don't have to concern myself with faith in their promised behavior. They will state that it's your responsibility to determine the legality of content you download and that it is not permitted, otherwise they are left with the liability.

No. The key point is that if your identity isn't known then you cannot be prosecuted.

Prosecutors cannot tell your identity from an IP address alone. They have to obtain your identity from either your ISP (if you're not using a VPN), from you (if you're foolish enough to reply to an infringement notice which has been forwarded to you), or from your VPN provider.

Since we're talking about VPN's, the first case isn't relevant. Since replying to a notice is totally within your control, the second isn't relevant either. So, the key question is: will your VPN give up your identity?

VPN providers exist for one reason--to provide anonymity--that's the only thing their customers are paying for. Any VPN which ever released customer data would be out of business within days. And that's why I "don't have to concern myself with faith in their promised behavior" I can trust in them protecting their own best interests.

I can also rely on prosecutors protecting their own best interests: not wasting time and money on international legal ventures when there are so many people downloading without the protection of a VPN which they can more cost effectively terrorize within their own jurisdictions.

I'm not saying it couldn't ever happen. But the risk of it happening is extremely low. For all practical purposes, downloading via a reputable VPN is safe.

[mjmacky]

VPN providers exist for one reason--to provide anonymity--that's the only thing their customers are paying for. Any VPN which ever released customer data would be out of business within days. And that's why I "don't have to concern myself with faith in their promised behavior" I can trust in them protecting their own best interests.

Well, no. They sell anonymity and remote access, they don't exist as ideological purveyors of privacy. If legal trouble will hurt their business, they'll easily sacrifice the identity of a few customers. VPN operators in Sweden would have more of an edge against legal threat than most others in different countries. You however paint the picture that since their livelihood is dependent on the service they sell, they will never disseminate customer information. That is very naive. Zot's suspicion doesn't seem all that far off, but I'll continue to entertain it a little while longer. Let's make it more interesting.

Let's push it further to the end, past petty DMCA complaints. Let's talk about terrorist communications and child pornography. Do you think some radical muslim group would rely on their concerns for privacy by using a VPN to publish and maintain a website? Do you think, that if they were using a VPN provider, their provider wouldn't hand out their information upon reasonable suspicion of terrorism claims? How many torrent sites are successfully running child pornography? Oh snap, mic drop.

[temisturk]

If legal trouble will hurt their business, they'll easily sacrifice the identity of a few customers.

Then why haven't they?

You however paint the picture that since their livelihood is dependent on the service they sell, they will never disseminate customer information.

You are now doing exactly what you accused me of doing. I very specifically did not say never.

Let's push it further to the end, past petty DMCA complaints. Let's talk about terrorist communications and child pornography. Do you think some radical muslim group would rely on their concerns for privacy by using a VPN to publish and maintain a website?

Do you think some radical muslim group would rely on their concerns for privacy by using a newsgroup to publish and maintain their communications?

Are newsgroups a haven for terrorists and child pornographers? If not, why not?