Giganews DMCA Rampage: Embrace 100% data loss.

[KFlint]

You see how much further the gap is, and why this is not equivalent to VPN?

I thought everybody could figure that out easily. Except temisturk, apparently.

[mjmacky]

You see how much further the gap is, and why this is not equivalent to VPN?

I thought everybody could figure that out easily. Except temisturk, apparently.

I think one has to learn it, so it would be especially foreign to someone who has never used usenet. I don't know his relationship with usenet, but he seems ready to debate about something; as good a time as any for a proper flogging.

[temisturk]

I accept that they are not, technically, exactly the same. But that really isn't the point that I'm trying to make. What I'm saying is that if you pay money to a company on the internet to protect yourself from hostile eyes, you are making an assumption that the company will act in good faith now and in the future and that it will not buckle to any pressure. And I'm saying that pressure can be applied to any sort of company and that some of them will buckle. And I don't know why you all keep insisting that every VPN keeps detailed logs of everything that people download from them and hands them over to the copyright police at the drop of a hat and that no Usenet company anywhere in the world ever has or ever will log anything and they'll all literally blow up their computer rooms before they would ever turn anything over to anybody. Especially when usenet companies actually host copyrighted content on their servers and accept money from people to download it which is exactly what companies like megaupload do and they're coming under very heavy legal fire at the moment, far more than any vpn provider has (because vpn providers only provide a conduit so there is no grounds to sue them for anything).

[mjmacky]

And I don't know why you all keep insisting that every VPN keeps detailed logs of everything that people download from them and hands them over to the copyright police at the drop of a hat and that no Usenet company anywhere in the world ever has or ever will log anything and they'll all literally blow up their computer rooms before they would ever turn anything over to anybody.

Not at all what I any of us were saying. With torrenting, DMCA agents gather evidence against you, they only need the VPN to identify who you are (very much like that's the only information they would need from an ISP). With usenet, they come empty handed, a post ID. With usenet, the burden of collecting evidence on you relies completely on the USP's logs (which probably are only maintained for uploaded posts, and only with originating USP). So what I'm trying to point out to you, is that with usenet, there is absolutely no monitoring/investigation a DMCA agent could do without complete assistance from a USP (and only if they still have logged downloading information, which is wasted space at best). And to correct another misconception you're having, in no way am I implying that a VPN keeps a log of all your activity. A VPN's complicity only requires them to identify who the IP address belongs to, and it's just as easy to force them to give it up as it is for an Internet Service Provider.

[temisturk]

OK, sorry, I didn't mean to be a rantygirl but your arguments are all so circular. Yes, there are ways in which copyright cops might gather evidence against a bittorrent user that they wouldn't be able to gather against a usenet user but that is obvious because the mechanisms are different. But there are also ways they could gather evidence against a Usenet provider which they couldn't gather against a VPN provider. They could pay money to the Usenet provider and download copyrighted content from them. They could then put the provider under pressure for hosting the content and if you can successfully prosecute someone then who knows what sort of deal they might be willing to come to. They could never gather that sort of evidence or use it against a VPN provider because VPN providers don't host content.

Or look at it another way. How come, when the copyright police make such a hoohah in the news when they close down a torrent site or steal a domain name or even "win" a case like Tenenbaum or Thomas they go to so much trouble to totally suppress any news of successful cases against VPN's? Because if you google, you won't find anyone anywhere in the world who have ever been prosecuted for downloading via a VPN. I haven't looked but I doubt you will find anyone who has ever been prosecuted for downloading from Usenet either. But that just points to the fact that both are pretty damn safe.

You guys are focussing on the trees and missing the forest, believing that you've found the ultimate solution to downloading in complete safety. But that's OK, I'm not saying or trying to convince anyone that bittorrent via a vpn is safer than usenet. And I'm not dissing Usenet. They are both good and safe and if you prefer one or the other then that is fine. If you were using LimeWire then that would be different as I would seriously worry for you but what you're choosing isn't a bad option. And remember I only posted here in the first place because someone wasn't happy with what the copyright police were doing to his Usenet downloading experience. Sheesh.

[mjmacky]

OK, sorry, I didn't mean to be a rantygirl but your arguments are all so circular... You guys are focussing on the trees and missing the forest

Rather, you're just pulling the topic away from our original point, which was originally that usenet users are inherently more protected than vpn'd bittorrent users, and are now making a case of how usenet service providers are more liable targets than vpn providers (which I would agree with).

Either way, I'd feel safe enough grabbing files off demonoid and btjunkie with no encryption or vpn the sell point of usenet for me is not having to deal with bt drama, mods/admins/users, keeping track of multiple sites, seeding woes (file relocation for every file I move around since I use my own filenames for EVERY file I download), etc.

[temisturk]

That's not away from the point that is the point. Users are only vulnerable if pressure can be brought to bear on the people who know their identities--the VPN or Usenet providers--and you've just agreed that Usenet providers are "more liable targets".

But I'm with you: either way I'd feel safe.

As for your other points I'm going to pass on taking up that argument today, in case I develop an irritable bowel.

[A_T]

IMO the difference between usenet and torrenting from a seedbox or vpn is that copyright holders can see if a file is been downloaded from a torrent and an ip address of who is doing it. With usenet they have no idea who if anyone is downloading unless they get hold of the providers logs - for which they would really need proof that people were downloading. For this reason I would say that for downloaders usenet is safer than torrenting via a vpn/seedbox.

[KFlint]

the VPN or Usenet providers

Or use both together. Still I think a VPN is a fake security, unless you find a provider that will never hand out your real IP when the associations knock at the door with some of their IP listed as performing illegal activity.

[zot]

in case I develop an irritable bowel.

<wisecrack redacted>