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