Giganews DMCA Rampage: Embrace 100% data loss.

[Hypatia]

Well, i guess some of the members from the copyright mafia ring did learn something about usenet :D

At least the ones that demand taking down certain xbox 360 games.
For the fun of it i tested several games posted not so long( ~27+ days) ago via supernews and , oh boy, was i surprised...

Totally wiped out data. 261/261 blocks not found per each file.(for instance)

So, if you like console games and think that block account will save you, then you are in for a nasty surprise. Well, it will fill those blocks but it will also expire soon..

Of course in most cases you can still find untouched releases of these games at least for now but hey, it still does hurt my big usenet loving tender heart :lol:

PSA its kinda funny to read them braggig on the official site about 100% completion. Yeah, you heard it right. 100%. Not even 99% as most other usenet providers advertise. rofl

[Beck38]

The 'game' publishers are much more 'up to snuff' on DMCA 'takedowns' and such than the movie folks. Then again, it's just as easy to use a rental service (even more so) and 'rip yer own', you just have to be on the cutting edge a bit more to produce the 'copy'.

[SuperTech]

CloneDVD + AnyDVD + Netflix = pure bliss :) I'm sure with SOPA they will try to block access to Anydvd's website, so I'll have to try to get updates off IRC or newsgroups.

[zot]

I kind of prefer the takedowns to be the entire file, rather than just 10% or so. No wasted server space or download bandwidth, and no nasty surprises at the end of the download.

I wonder if Giganews claims 100% completion on all those files that were not uploaded properly? Apparently it's defined as 100% completion on what they actually have rather than on what they should have

Although it was usually a fun project, I found it could be a lot of work putting together a 100% working game copy. And this was back in the pre-p2p dialup era -- but now it's so much quicker and easier to get something off the internet than to try to rip/copy your own, I've got to wonder why people would even bother.

[temisturk]

If you're going to pay for newsgroup access, why not pay for a seedbox or VPN ? They will give you an equivalent level of anonymity and a whole load of options on how to where and how to download.

[zot]

why not pay for a seedbox or VPN ? They will give you an equivalent level of anonymity
Many VPNs are not the least bit anonymous -- and presumably some seedbox companies as well.


http://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-providers-really-take-anonymity-seriously-111007/

And it's worth pointing out that even companies that promised absolute anonymity have been quick to rat-out customers as soon as the law came knocking.

[temisturk]

I didn't say all VPN's and seedboxes guaranteed anonymous. This is the Internet--you do need to use at least some common sense.

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.

Also, if you want to play at TorrentFreak quoting, read this: http://torrentfreak.com/giganews-lawyer-says-steal-this-film-is-an-illegal-download-100520/

[mjmacky]

If you're going to pay for newsgroup access, why not pay for a seedbox or VPN ? They will give you an equivalent level of anonymity and a whole load of options on how to where and how to download.

One of the primary advantages of Usenet is not having to deal with all of the downsides of bittorrent culture, anonymity is just another bonus.

[temisturk]

There are downsides (and upsides) to everything. I'm not saying that BT is superior to Usenet (nor that it is inferior). I'm just pointing out to someone who is experiencing some dissatisfaction with one form of filesharing that there are viable alternatives.

[mjmacky]

Sure, but I'm only pointing out the decision to pay a few bucks goes beyond anonymity and internet speed. I look at bittorrent culture as a horrible horrible plague, and only use these private sites to fill the gaps that usenet doesn't address, which right now includes some web.dl's and versions of movies I want to archive.

[temisturk]

Should I try to defend "bittorrent culture"? I could take a shot but this is the newsgroups section so I'm not sure it would be appropriate to do so here? I just wanted to say there was a choice, which I've done, not to evangelise or try to troll newsgroupies. I need your unreliable guidance to know whether now would be a good time to stfu or not?

[mjmacky]

I'm trying to see how defending bittorrent culture would offend newsgroup users, but I just can't find the angle. Your arguments, depending on their nature, might offend the spirit of intellectual development so that's your chance to take.

By the way zot's a totally uninformed pussy, beck38 is probably wedged between 2 server stacks tired and hungry with no one responding to his cries of help, and hypatia is a plant from the MPAA here to spy on all of us and undermine some supposed movement.

[temisturk]

I was just thinking about it being off-topic, some forums don't like that. And I got bitten by american idol for merely mentioning downloading in the movie section so I'm just being careful. Anyway, you're going to have to make a more specfic accusation than "bittorrent culture is a horrible horrible plague" if I'm to make a more specific defence than "no, it's not, it's a wonderful garden full of sunflowers."

[lightshow]

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.

[mjmacky]

I was just thinking about it being off-topic, some forums don't like that. And I got bitten by american idol for merely mentioning downloading in the movie section so I'm just being careful. Anyway, you're going to have to make a more specfic accusation than "bittorrent culture is a horrible horrible plague" if I'm to make a more specific defence than "no, it's not, it's a wonderful garden full of sunflowers."

You'll never catch idle in a mood where he isn't bitching about something or at least extremely annoyed. I'm surprised he hasn't hung himself. Personally, I enjoy the melancholy (and I'll ignore any of his attempts to define his mood). But no, I don't feel like going on an extremely long tirade about bt culture. Much of my ranting can be found during my 200th-700th posts probably (no idea because I can't check).

[temisturk]

OK, we'll call it a draw then. :fst:

[hdjunky]

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.

yes but it prolly isnt a good idea to advertise who has it all. dont need to do the work for the copyright a-holes.

[mjmacky]

OK, we'll call it a draw then. :fst:

I never draw, and I only lose if I decide to take a loss. This was me sparing you from a routing, and me sparing myself from irritable bowels.

[lightshow]

yes but it prolly isnt a good idea to advertise who has it all. dont need to do the work for the copyright a-holes.

I think it's fine to freely discuss this. The companies that issue the DCMA have full knowledge of all the major channels of which binaries of their stuff can be posted. Really the discussion on our side would be which providers stand up to DCMA requests and/or are able to drag their feet for a measurable amount of time.

[temisturk]

Ah, that explains your avatar :lol:

[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-admits-sending-hotfile-false-takedown-requests-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?

[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. :D

[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. :D
<wisecrack redacted>

[temisturk]

Thanks for that reply. When people descend to posting nothing but personal abuse I know they know they've lost their argument.

[mjmacky]

When people descend to posting nothing but personal abuse

Personal abuse or wordplay, you've misread the context... you need to keep up Mr. K. Just because you haven't conceded defeat doesn't mean you didn't already lose the debate. Now we are having post debate drinks and tomfoolery.


Also, no one responding to my allegations in post 12 makes me think they never read my posts or that they must be true.

[temisturk]

Now I'm just confused.

[cola]

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).

Usenet providers are protected by DMCA safeharbor provisions. Not responsible for content thats posted as long as they make reasonable efforts to comply with DMCA takedowns. VPNs have the same protection, but you'll get your account canceled in the process for attracting abuse complaints. (Assuming that you're using a VPN that cares about abuse complaints of that nature).

No usenet provider is going to track downloads since the logging itself would take too much space. Even if they're logging what IPs are connecting and nothing else, I doubt they keep it longer than a few days. Also, what would be the point of logging who downloads what? Takes space that can be used for actual usenet posts. Serves no point.

[zot]

I took back my hasty quip about temisturk's self-admitted excretory distress. (maybe I need sensitivity training?)


Now I'm just confused.
I think many of us noticed that a long time ago.

If you're going to continue to insist that an illegal act carried out in public view (i.e. torrenting) is no riskier than a legal** act done in private (usenet downloading) then there's probably not much more we can say to try to convince you otherwise.

**I'll concede that the act of (strictly) downloading copyrighted content is unlawful in a very few countries such as Japan, so usenet downloading (from an in-country server) might be less safe in those countries. But that's not the case here.

[temisturk]

usenet providers are protected by dmca safeharbor provisions. Not responsible for content thats posted as long as they make reasonable efforts to comply with dmca takedowns. Vpns have the same protection, but you'll get your account canceled in the process for attracting abuse complaints. (assuming that you're using a vpn that cares about abuse complaints of that nature).

Well we already know from the evidence supplied by usenet supporters in this very thread that supernews, newsdemon, highwinds and giganews "care about complaints of that nature" but I've never seen any report of a VPN which does so.

So do you have any evidence to support your accusation or are you just clutching at straws?


No usenet provider is going to track downloads since the logging itself would take too much space. Even if they're logging what ips are connecting and nothing else, i doubt they keep it longer than a few days. Also, what would be the point of logging who downloads what? Takes space that can be used for actual usenet posts. Serves no point.

If it "serves no point" for usenet providers to do so then it serves no point for VPN providers to do so. QED.


If you're going to continue to insist that an illegal act carried out in public view (i.e. Torrenting) is no riskier than a legal** act done in private (usenet downloading) then there's probably not much more we can say to try to convince you otherwise.

If you're going to start insisting that the mere use of BitTorrent is inherently and globally illegal and will inevitably result in criminal or civil sanctions even when one's identity is being shielded by a VPN provider (whose entire business model is based solely on that shielding) and that the use of Usenet is inherently and globally legal and can never possibly result in any sanctions then you're right--nobody can trust you to even follow the debate let alone contribute anything sensible to it.

[mjmacky]

Well we already know from the evidence supplied by usenet supporters in this very thread that supernews, newsdemon, highwinds and giganews "care about complaints of that nature" but I've never seen any report of a VPN which does so.

So do you have any evidence to support your accusation or are you just clutching at straws?

If it "serves no point" for usenet providers to do so then it serves no point for VPN providers to do so. QED.

If you're going to start insisting that the mere use of BitTorrent is inherently and globally illegal and will inevitably result in criminal or civil sanctions even when one's identity is being shielded by a VPN provider (whose entire business model is based solely on that shielding) and that the use of Usenet is inherently and globally legal and can never possibly result in any sanctions then you're right--nobody can trust you to even follow the debate let alone contribute anything sensible to it.

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:


VPN connection:
What data we collect: We will store a time stamp and IP address when you connect and disconnect to our Site. We do not store details of, or monitor, web traffic data for each VPN session, including but not limited to, details of website URL's you have visited or the protocols you have used.
Why we need this data: We do this so that we can monitor the performance of our Site, for example it enables us to sort server nodes by the amount of Users connected, to limit your account to one concurrent IP address per VPN connection (to prevent abuse and shared accounts), resource analytics (to carry out usage graphing for administrative purposes). We reserve the right to store this data on our system for up to two years unless we are required, for legal reasons or under exceptional circumstances, to retain this data for an extended period.

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.

[nntpjunkie]

@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 (http://forums.newsbin.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=29170) - 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 :)

[zot]

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.

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.

[Hypatia]

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

[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. :lol:

[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?

[mjmacky]

Then why haven't they?

Are you so certain they haven't, multiple times?


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

I know you didn't "specifically", hence the turn of phrase "paint the picture".


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?

I don't see how text or binary based newsgroups would be all that useful or helpful to a radical group.

Child pornography haven, yes, it is. I haven't heard of any other filesharing medium where they haven't been able to completely dismantle child pornography other than usenet.

[Hypatia]

filesharing medium where they haven't been able to completely dismantle child pornography other than usenet.

tbh i dunno why people keep coming with this idea of usenet as a CP haven

almost everything that is in the open is taken down whether its a group or a release. And if it is hidden then its hard to find anyways= its non existant for your average Joe

On the other hand we have emule\edonkey\KAD... LOTs of stuff out there. you just type in a search field smth like 12 yo, set video, set size 100 mb and voila.

Can you do that on usenet? Nope.

Perhaps there are some hidden videos or pictures in certain groups disguised as something else but thats totally different matter

Also some anonymous p2p networks like darknet for instance

[temisturk]

Are you so certain they haven't, multiple times?

Yes, very certain. That's why I've challenged you openly and repeatedly to back up your claims with some evidence--because I know full well that you cannot do so. Propaganda is the strongest weapon in the anti-filesharing arsenal and shattering the beliefs of VPN users that they can download safely would be a massive victory. That's why they trumpet victories against Usenet providers (even when the cases are still subject to appeal) (http://torrentfreak.com/major-usenet-provider-shuts-down-following-court-order-111106/). Yet if you search the web you won't find a single reliable story of a filesharer being caught downloading via a VPN or a VPN company being forced to close or reveal information about filesharers.


I know you didn't "specifically", hence the turn of phrase "paint the picture".I have said in just about every post I've made that there are no absolutes. If you think I've painted any picture other than relative safety then you haven't been paying attention.


I don't see how text or binary based newsgroups would be all that useful or helpful to a radical group.If you don't see how secure communications would be important to a radical group why do you think they would want to run a website?

[mjmacky]

Yes, very certain. That's why I've challenged you openly and repeatedly to back up your claims with some evidence--because I know full well that you cannot do so. Propaganda is the strongest weapon in the anti-filesharing arsenal and shattering the beliefs of VPN users that they can download safely would be a massive victory. That's why they trumpet victories against Usenet providers (even when the cases are still subject to appeal) (http://torrentfreak.com/major-usenet-provider-shuts-down-following-court-order-111106/). Yet if you search the web you won't find a single reliable story of a filesharer being caught downloading via a VPN or a VPN company being forced to close or reveal information about filesharers.

You could only be certain if you were linked into all the DMCA prosecuting efforts, careful with your missteps. Also, you neglect the mutual advantage they would have if their cooperation were not paraded/trumpeted. Propaganda in their favor would be the arrest and prosecution of individuals, not the dealings between DMCA operators and these private services. It works differently with ISPs, as DMCA activism seems to have all major ISPs in many countries on lockdown, and there aren't many options for the consumers. Acknowledging the effectiveness of a paper shield would be an important strategy.


I have said in just about every post I've made that there are no absolutes. If you think I've painted any picture other than relative safety then you haven't been paying attention.

Rather the nuances of the English language are fleeing your company.


If you don't see how secure communications would be important to a radical group why do you think they would want to run a website?

It was more a matter of functionality/practicality that my comment was addressing, not the need for security. They do have some hosting safe havens.




tbh i dunno why people keep coming with this idea of usenet as a CP haven

almost everything that is in the open is taken down whether its a group or a release. And if it is hidden then its hard to find anyways= its non existant for your average Joe

On the other hand we have emule\edonkey\KAD... LOTs of stuff out there. you just type in a search field smth like 12 yo, set video, set size 100 mb and voila.

Can you do that on usenet? Nope.

Perhaps there are some hidden videos or pictures in certain groups disguised as something else but thats totally different matter

Also some anonymous p2p networks like darknet for instance

Honestly, I'm not all up to speed with CP practices, much in contrast to the viewpoints I present. I assume that if something is labeled as CP, wouldn't it be a trap at this point? I've always heard usenet is a huge haven for CP, and I assumed that their postings are masked, much in the same way scene and P2P sometimes mask their headers (thus relying on manual indexing). Those other p2p options would be dangerous to continue that kind of activity, wouldn't it? Makes logical sense to me. We'd have to ask someone who is in that secret club, perhaps Idol.

As far as darknet, the only thing I know about it is that it's only accessible through tor service. I've used tor before, and it's way too slow for my tastes, don't know if it has improved as of late.

[temisturk]

Also, you neglect the mutual advantage they would have if their cooperation were not paraded/trumpeted.

I've not neglected it because it doesn't exist.

Certainly it would be in the VPN providers interests to keep the matter under wraps but it would not be in the copyright trolls interests. On the contrary, anything that undermined the interests of a service which protects people from them would be in the copyright trolls interests.

But, anyway, lets consider the nonsense further:

Lets say a copyright troll were to detect me downloading something via a VPN. And they managed to muster enough legal force to convince the VPN provider to reveal my identity. They would then have one person for one count of copyright infringement. Nothing like the 100's or 1000's of counts they've had to slap people like Jammy Thomas or Joel Tenenbaum with. One of three things would then happen.
1. I'd agree to hand over the few hundred dollars they demand from people. That wouldn't cover their legal expenses. And it wouldn't deter anyone, other than perhaps me, from continuing to download. A net loss for them.
2. I'd fight them in court and
a) win or
b) lose.

Court records are public information and the first story of a VPN provider failing to protect someone would be big news--it would be hard and expensive to cover that up. And if they succeeded in covering it up, again we're left with them having spent lots of money and not having succeeded in detering anyone except me from downloading. A net loss. It makes no sense.

Obviously if I won then they wouldn't want people to know. But if I won then that would undermine your case so lets ignore that possibility.

If I lost? And they managed to keep it quiet? They would get a few hundred dollars in damages and possibly something towards their court costs. But even if they forced me into bankruptcy I wouldn't be able to pay them enough to cover the costs of the legal actions they had had to mount in two distinct international jurisdictions. So they would have lost money and gained nothing but making life a misery for one person who won't serve as an example. Yet again, a net loss for them.

But, if they were to publicise simply the fact that they'd successfully identified me their costs would be lower (since they wouldn't have to pay for the additional court case), their risks would be lower (since they might fail in the prosecution case) and their returns--making many people around the world think twice about relying on a VPN--would be higher.

In other words, no matter which way you try to swing it, your continued inability to find any evidence supporting your allegations resoundingly supports the conclusion that there have been no successful breaches of downloaders VPN security.

---

I have to say, at this point, you're the only one putting any credible effort into attacking the integrity of VPN's. And it's clear to me that although I can counter you point-by-point, I'm never going to succeed in getting you to admit that they are not inherently and fatally flawed.

If you accept that you will never be able to convince me that they are, then I'll be happy to call time. After all, I wouldn't want to prolong this debate indefinitely and risk being labelled a troll.

[mjmacky]

Also, you neglect the mutual advantage they would have if their cooperation were not paraded/trumpeted.

I've not neglected it because it doesn't exist.

summary: Something about there not being a huge story about VPN sellouts.
and this: "On the contrary, anything that undermined the interests of a service which protects people from them would be in the copyright trolls interests"

You limit yourself to think about the implications of what has happened in the past. You've got to be able to think ahead about these things. Major cases can easily be building or will be built on the principle around this, simply because it's gaining en masse. Jeopardizing your advantage with a single or few cases and trumpeting it would undermine the effort (quite the opposite of what you're claiming). Basically, relying on VPN providers to maintain your identity and anonymity long term puts you in a precarious position. It would be foolish to think DMCA won't be taking or already hasn't been taking steps to dismantle VPN protection. The ease of the process is what would make it a lucrative target.

Back to the original point, they would also like to dismantle pseudo-binary usenet services. However, they can only go after content uploaders at this point. In the future, they'll probably try to take down the service providers. One of their current methods is spamming and DMCA takedown notices. By the nature of how it's setup, downloaders will be able to walk away cleanly if and when that happens.

[temisturk]

Well, OK, since you have actually already labelled me a troll, and you're not willing to accept any possibilities other than your own personal favourite alternative future history, I'm going to unilaterally withdraw.

Consider yourself victorious if you wish. Personally, I think you've done a dis-service to the filesharing community in spreading FUD about something which is a benefit to them. Still, I guess if they can't see through the smoke that's their problem.

[mjmacky]

Well, OK, since you have actually already labelled me a troll, and you're not willing to accept any possibilities other than your own personal favourite alternative future history, I'm going to unilaterally withdraw.

Consider yourself victorious if you wish. Personally, I think you've done a dis-service to the filesharing community in spreading FUD about something which is a benefit to them. Still, I guess if they can't see through the smoke that's their problem.

Troll

[zot]

This was originally supposed to be about Giganews. There has already been some lengthy (and troll-free) discussion about VPNs here recently.

http://filesharingtalk.com/threads/434202-Why-do-people-use-VPN-s

**Also note my post #7 about the two-faced Surfola.com (at least HideMyAss never made such bold, seemingly-ironclad promises before ratting out people --in that case without even asking to see a court order)

I think most of us know that a common troll tactic is to bait people into the argument by making outlandish claims that beg for correction -- note the audacious proclamation that "VPN providers exist for one reason--to provide anonymity--that's the only thing their customers are paying for."

Quite laughable, considering that VPNs have been around for over a decade, yet were never even marketed as an anonymity service until quite recently, and sadly displacing the more complicated --but technically superior-- SOCKS (and later HTTP) proxy services in the anonymous-P2P arena.

What I loved about a SOCKS proxy was that --unlike a VPN-- I could selectively route a P2P/ed2k/torrent client (and nothing else) through the proxy while downloading off my ISP's usenet server (which required my real IP address). This was back in the days when I was on ED2K virtually 24/7 and that situation would have been impossible using a VPN instead of a SOCKS proxy, since on ED2K, disconnecting from the network to do other tasks would loose all queue slots and set a downloader back several hours -- or even several days.

Personally, I wish that VPNs had remained the business-oriented *non-anonymous* service as they were originally intended, so that the highly-configurable socks proxies would not have been wiped off the market by the "one-click" VPNs that no doubt saved companies a fortune in tech-support costs.

... sorry to be ranting off topic here ... not to mention troll-feeding.

[mjmacky]

This was originally supposed to be about Giganews.

Didn't you hear? Giganews has a VPN service and access to usenet.

Total on topic combination FTW!

[cola]

People who used the giganews VPN on public trackers got DMCA notices and their accounts suspended to.

If you want to use a Swedish, Dutch, ect VPN, they'll likely ignore DMCA requests. If you're using a VPN that is in the US, they have to by law comply with DMCA requests. Being a VPN has no legal protection from DMCA. Only the location of the servers. Not even all dutch VPNs will give you that guarantee, since many of them probably use Leaseweb, who will suspend your account if you get too many.