Im thinking of uploading some blurays to usenet, would anyone be intrested, Think im going to stary off uploading Year One 2009 then most prob Ice age 3,
What you guys think?
Printable View
Im thinking of uploading some blurays to usenet, would anyone be intrested, Think im going to stary off uploading Year One 2009 then most prob Ice age 3,
What you guys think?
Yes upload them. I am sure many would be interested.
Yeah, just do a quick search in NZBIndex and make sure someone else didn't already.
Also, as long as you upload them to the right group, someone would always want them.
upload sum quality 720p encodes, like from hd-united, pleeeez:yes:
Ill be uploading full BD-25 iver untouched or Re-Encoded by me
How long does it take for you guys to upload a bd-25?
Im uploading a Bd-25 atm and it says 60h, so will post it on site when done, Ive out a password on it so only people getting the nzb from the sites i post it on can extract it.
The two major newsgroups for BR is a.b.blu-ray (kinda obvious there) and a.b.hdtv (although exactly why is a bit of a mystery, probably because a lot of broadcast HD was put there before any disc format).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepgek
The size v. upload speed made a lot of folks password encrypt their postings in the early days (heck, even now), so that the xxx-days it took the lechers (uh, us common downloader types) wouldn't fill up the group will 'hey, this has xxx missing parts!' during the time it took to upload.
The most common 'technique' was to embed the password file as a part of the rar set, generate the par file, and then delete it from the actual download list; since the par files were the last file uploaded, that meant that when the d/l'er ran quickpar on the files, even a 100% retrieval would report '1' file missing. The pw file. Easily retrieved at that point. Get it?
Others use poorer techniques, or weird hoop jumping (although the scheme used by 'Trapdoor' for SD DVD9's is pretty unique itself, and relies on a pw file that is posted at some future date, well after the complete posting is done, complete with nfo and nzb's).
Even though the BD25 and BD50 discs are huge, and unless you're on FIOS with jaw-dropping upload speeds, I'm always astounded by those who, when doing BD's, seem to 'forget' basic usenet practices. Like part sizes; I just d/l'ed one that had parts LARGER than 1GB per part! Even a 4-core cpu and super-fast ram/disc drives just about ground to a halt trying to run quickpar on parts that large!
And the number of BD posting folks that 'forget' to do an nzb! Or an NFO! and don't forget those who seem to think stripping out bits and pieces makes sense, too. Jeez, if you're going to do something that large, DO IT. Don't try to slice off a handful of GB's to make it smaller, or easier.
Those commentary tracks, or obscure (to you or me, maybe) language or subtitles may be just what someone else is looking for.
But go to it, just make sure you're using a good decrypter (AnyDVD-HD is the best), and that the result is squeaky clean.
I do not want to sound ungratfull, but passwording the file is the wrong direction to go here, no offense, but I use search engines alot, and some people don't even visit web sites, but just use search engines, headers, search groups with headers, and use supersearch, there's nothing more annoying than downloading 25GB and don't know the password. Maybe a NFO stating the password in it, and saying this was posted as such and such, maybe to give the user the heads up, not promoting or anything, just saying I know alot alot alot of users are against passwording files.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepgek
I've never understood why so many people password-protect usenet posts (that use the real title, and worse yet, don't even say it's PW'd). Passwording a file won't prevent it from being taken down, as DMCAs can easily be issued for material sight-unseen if the copyright owner only suspects the file might be infringing.
But for people who feel they must encrypt a release, they should "encrypt" the subject/overview/header as well, so the passworded file won't be found in key-word searches or downloaded by people who can't open it. But then a cryptic filename alone probably should be enough protect a file from the MAFIAA's takedown demands.
I can think of only one good reason to PW files -- for paranoid posters using a low-retention server (and a provider that does not log post details past the retention period) so that by the time the file can be identified and opened at a later date, the poster's identity has already been scrubbed off the server. (Though retention alone can be deceptive; some providers like Easynews were saving logs of posters for over a year on a server with only 2 weeks retention) I wonder if that might be the logic behind the Trapdoor delay?
This is the only release i will be passwording the whole idea was to give you guys at filesharing talk something back for helping with all the great nzb in the past, the nfo will state to get password visit filesharingtalk, i hate passwords myself but my first bd-25 release wanted it to be exclusive for this site
You should use the rapidoor method from ABHDTV to really keep it exclusive. I wonder if some fed is sitting around wondering why people upload so many gigs of passworded home movies...
Thats mostly paranoia.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrollinThunder
I thought it was convenience.
edited*
That system wouldn't really help you either. If you're having to distribute files on usenet to a group of people that you don't know, you can't think that you're actually going to be protected.
If I was going to upload a binary that I only wanted, say 10 people to have. 10 people that I know, I would PGP encrypt the archive with each person's public key. Then put that archive into a multipart rar (preferably passworded, but not required). Then tell the 10 people the symmetric password. No one is going to be able to decrypt those files unless one of the private keys is compromised.
Sarcasm.
Im interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepgek
Please no passwords and maybe include the log file? :yup:
Also here are some BD nzb's for reference
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/nzb-index/movies/bluray/
Which he's post alot of :whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by iLOVENZBIm interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepgek
Please no passwords and maybe include the log file? :yup:
Also here are some BD nzb's for reference
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/nzb-index/movies/bluray/
My First Upload is up now Year One Unrated.
ericab > would you mind removing the rapidoor guide from your post? we try to keep the text only on usenet so usenet folks can benefit on the down-low.
as far as the method goes, your right, it is not intended to be convenient, BUT it can be more convenient than how some post. using this format the poster must post the title in clear text which has a pretty quick and standard link to the nzb already created. no password hassles and what not. of course a clear text post with nzb would be best, but some posters would never post like that so compromises must be made. also with the amount of stuff hitting ab.hdtv, having all the content posts easily filterable in a usenet client, as well as the announce posts, the prior all start rapidoor, the former all start _AB HDTV_REVIEWS is a plus.
the point of the method is to obfuscate but not hide the post from the general masses who want it. it atempts to standarize naming and passwords so you don't have to hunt for them. it tries to give posters more well being so they keep posting and we all win. it also allows for a number of options in how it is used and how 'tough' you want to make it. its initial implementation was too prevent third party websites from catalogging posts like newzbin; with all files named the same, it allows posters to hide amongst each other and makes it impossible to catalog.
no fully secure method exists, especially if your trying to share.
sure no problem
60hr to upload is craziness
but the uploads will be much appreciated...if you upload it, they will come
Just goes to show the 'breath' (or lack thereof) of 'broadband' in some parts. Where I live (maybe where you are as well, but it's local adverts not on any 'national' network) AT&T has been running these commercials patting itself on the back for 'all the improvements we've made to broadband over the last 10 years'.Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchmaster420
:cry:
The first thing they did 10 years ago was get the state legislature to pass a law prohibiting any local government organization from building broadband networks (we have county/city run electric grids where I live, and AT&T owned the cablecos before the sellout to Comcrud).
A couple of cities managed to get their networks up and running before the law went into effect, and were 'grandfathered' into staying in operation. They still exist (100% fiber to the home), and Comcast and the telco (mostly Verizon, some Qwest) have about .001% of the market there.
This is in a mostly rural state, that IF there was decent internet (hell, decent basic PHONE service) in most the parts, we would be giving China and India a run for their money in doing things like phone support and such.
But....NOOOOOOOO. We can't have that! Even though I live less than 3 miles from the WORLD'S BIGGEST BUILDING (look it up), max speed I can get is 10/2mb/s (Comcast, with various limits and slowdowns, at ~$99/mo) or 3/768kb/s from Verizon (no limits, $35/mo).
I have to restrain myself from thowing a brick at the tv during those 'commercials'.
256kbps/40GB=7.62939453 × 10-7 hertzQuote:
Originally Posted by dutchmaster420
Standard plan in Australia is 1500/256 (and they pay a fortune). Now with the introduction of FTTH they'll get 100mb/100mb (supposedly), while the rest of the world will get 1gb/1gb :P
Australia was still of dial-up when then rest of the world was on broadband :sick:.