Giganews DMCA Rampage: Embrace 100% data loss.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temisturk

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.

Now I'm just confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temisturk

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temisturk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cola

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cola

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zot

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temisturk

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HideMyAssPrivacyPolicy

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.

@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 :)

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 - 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zot

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.

Quote:

---

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 )

Quote:

---

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

---

he didnt say that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temisturk

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypatia

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

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypatia

he didnt say that.

---

Forget about him, you just said that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypatia

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.

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

Quote:

---

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

@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).

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temisturk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

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

---

Then why haven't they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temisturk

Then why haven't they?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temisturk

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temisturk

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

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). 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temisturk

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). 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temisturk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temisturk

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypatia

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by temisturk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Troll

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/4...ople-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zot

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!

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.