BT vs NZB

[thenagaraja]

Hi Everyone,

I understand BT requires the seeder/uploader to be online at the time, or can these files also be on a server who is running a BT client?

Also, NZBs I have a few questions about:
1. Why split files (multiple RARs)
2. How do files get damaged and require repairing using quickpar
3. Where are these files stored that requires a newsreader to access?
4. How is illegal content still online when free binary searches easily show illegal content


Been using NZBs for years but never properly understood them, hopefully a guru can answer my questions!

Thanks

[Skiz]

Moved to Newgroups. Generally speaking, Bittorrent folks aren't going to give good insight into Usenet.

[thegands]

1. Releases are split into multiple rars because that is how the scene releases them on their private servers and also makes repairs easier (easier to repair a couple 100mb damaged files than to repair a 4gb single file)
2. Files get damaged because of how articles(what files are made up of on the usenet server) are distributed between usenet servers. Articles are copied from the originating usenet server to all other servers and articles are sometimes copied incorrectly or corrupted. The completion of usenet servers varies greatly from service to service and has become greatly dependent on whether they respond to DMCA requests. When a usenet server recieves a DMCA request for a post, the entire post is removed from the usenet server, but it is only apparent that it has been removed once you start the download. (usenet services generally do not index their own content, leaving that to 3rd party indexers. That is why you are able to see content on nzb indexers that has been removed from your usenet server. It's because the usenet server recieved the DMCA and not the indexer.)
3. Usenet files exist as text articles on the usenet servers located across the globe.
4. Content is still online that is easily found via binary searches because the copyright holder, or a company that works for the copyright holder, has not DMCAed that content to be removed. Often times, however, DMCAs are mass-sent to usenet providers to be removed and not the indexers, so the content can easily be found via an nzb search but most usenet services have removed the articles from their servers. To completely remove all traces of the offending file, the copyright holder would not only need to send DMCAs to the usenet services, but also the usenet indexers, which is quite an undertaking.

slyck has a great overview of how usenet works that addresses your questions http://www.slyck.com/ng.php?page=2

[Beck38]

Usenet is a TEXT based system, and the way binaries are sent across the 'network' is via a somewhat cobbled together system that you see as multiple RAR's/PARs and such.

And yes, SLYCK has an excellent overview.

Although BT has gotten a WHOLE lot better in the last 10+ years since the early years, having commercial relay's (servers) is still a pretty big advantage, although the 'top tier' BT seeders that run 24/7 out of hosting facilities with large data array's come close.

But, those commercial entities operate under the DMCA. But as 'thegands' pointed out, even if that system has been highly automated by the plant operators (Astraweb is a good example), those notices have to be sent to every operator. The end result is that, in reality, very little actually gets DMCA'd, only that material in which the 'rights holder' has a high return on getting it squashed, which is usually high cost PPV's and the like (read: pro-wresting for one).

Then again, if that's what you're looking for, there are more than a handful of private sites that scramble and encrypt such fare.

I keep telling folks (and it's true!) that in almost 20 years of posting to usenet, and in particular the last 10 years with both SD and HD movies, I've NEVER had a single thing DMCA'ed to my knowledge, and I continually run testing (NZBcc and auch) on my postings all the time (I've found many commercial plants going 'off the rails' with their system as a result, and given the operators a good 'heads up' upon occasion).

But one never knows, it might happen tomorrow. But at this point, I think not. This getting DMCA'd has really been overblown.