i wonder if someone has ever been harassed by majors for copyrights infringement after an upload on usenet.
Printable View
i wonder if someone has ever been harassed by majors for copyrights infringement after an upload on usenet.
I think only the search engines have been called into question. As far as I know, anyhow.
The only ones that could be harassed are the actual server owners.
I don't recall any news of ppl downloading on usenet being caught....
Depends on where the server is located.
In the US, usenet servers have been under 'common carrier' laws and provisions for a VERY long time, just like the telcos (internet carriage by the cablecos is rather recent, and there is some question there as to common carrier status).
By saying that, they are completely immune to being sued, although there is some question as to DMCA provisions which may (and some parts of it already have) been found by the courts as going against the common carrier laws (over 150 years old).
In other words, just like the telcos can't be sued for 'carrying' 'perhaps' illegal messages (up to and including bomb threats, for instance), they can't be held accountable for anything else.
Now, IF they can obtain records, or 'tap' your line (another hazy part of the law in the US at present), is another thing. Obviously, if you use SSL, it's remote/impossible.
Some usenet server operations have been 'erroring on the side' of the DMCA, although again, it's 'hazy', and have erased files on nothing more than a 'takedown' letter from the *paa's. But that's just one server, and there are dozens.
I would venture to say that any server operations that 'gave up' the uploader (name, ip, etc) would be out of business the next day.
If I recall correctly, a DCP scanner got a DMCA notice and had his posting privileges revoked.Quote:
Originally Posted by james_bond_rulez
PS, Source: http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=39476
That was back in 2007, with the advancements of SSL and other security measures, Usenet is probably the second safest form of getting Linux ISO's. First would be from FTP's with friends.
I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by iLOVENZBIf I recall correctly, a DCP scanner got a DMCA notice and had his posting privileges revoked.Quote:
Originally Posted by james_bond_rulez
PS, Source: http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=39476
That was back in 2007, with the advancements of SSL and other security measures, Usenet is probably the second safest form of getting Linux ISO's. First would be from FTP's with friends.
Although, I have to mention that sometimes my friend's FTP is slow and getting Ubuntu off of Usenet is much quicker.
Depends on the location of the server I guess, if you're throttled, how many 'friends' are sharing it etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by link2009I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by iLOVENZB
Although, I have to mention that sometimes my friend's FTP is slow and getting Ubuntu off of Usenet is much quicker.
Now I come to think about it, Usenet probably is the safest, with FTP's your IP is revealed in the log to the master.
I think you guys are safe for years to come. The law is barely understanding bittorrent, they are pretty stupid about it. No worries!
And most attention is seemingly on BT anyway. Nothing is absolutely safe, there's risks to all, but at least it is safer than most filesharing methods these days.
That's if you're caught, I've never even seem a DMCA notice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedo
My suggestion is choose your ISP wisely.
its the safest out there
I think you might worry about your isp more,as long as isp don't cooperate with the dark side,most people will be safe.
If you would be using SSL on usenet. Your ISP will know that you are downloading. But will not know what you are downloading.
Your ISP wouldn't care what you're downloading anyways.
Most would if they had BREIN was breathing down their necks. Well done iiNet :P.Quote:
Originally Posted by cola
From what I've heard it's safe, but I don't know.
Using SSL etc will def make it harder for any one to find out that you are downloading a 'linux OS' but I'm wondering how long before they start hitting Newsgroup Providers now they have dipped their toe into indexing sites.
darknets like Freenet , I2P, and MUTE are even more secure
As of a court ruling just today in the U.S., ISP's can limit, delay, or cut you off if you d/l from somewhere they don't 'like', including completely legal sites that don't pay the ISP 'connect' or 'transfer' charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by cola
It all came about over torrents, of course, where the ISP's said it was 'within their network management prerogatives' to mess around with the traffic.
That escalated into some ISP's blocking connections to commercial sites that didn't pay the ISP's 'up front' to carry their traffic (to, it must be said, their 'customers' who paid for the connection).
'Double-Dipping'. Now totally legal. 'Network Neutrality' is DEAD.
Once traffic really starts getting throttled for usenet by ISP's i'd imagine newsgroup providers could just change the port to a nonstandard one. That along with SSL will make it very hard for ISP's to throttle or know what's going on (aside from the high data usage), but there are plenty of legitimate reasons for that :)
Mine has been doing that for years now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sili
I never said that your ISP won't care about how much you download, but its not like they're looking at your usenet traffic going "uh oh, he's downloading LotR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beck38As of a court ruling just today in the U.S., ISP's can limit, delay, or cut you off if you d/l from somewhere they don't 'like', including completely legal sites that don't pay the ISP 'connect' or 'transfer' charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by cola
It all came about over torrents, of course, where the ISP's said it was 'within their network management prerogatives' to mess around with the traffic.
That escalated into some ISP's blocking connections to commercial sites that didn't pay the ISP's 'up front' to carry their traffic (to, it must be said, their 'customers' who paid for the connection).
'Double-Dipping'. Now totally legal. 'Network Neutrality' is DEAD.
havent run into any problems in -what- 7 years
Uh, here in the US that's what got Comcast into trouble with the FCC; then the courts decided that the FCC didn't have the authority since the internet was changed from a telecommunications service to a 'message' service a few years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by cola
This week, the FCC changed it back to a telecom service (where it had been since the 1970's through 2003), with a few changes.
But during that period (2003 until a couple days ago) the ISP's could do whatever they wanted with your traffic. And yes, if you dug down in their respective AUP's (acceptable use policy's) you'd find that usenet traffic (allong with P2P) was specifically singled out as that traffic they were dead set against.
The best security measure is to use a provider that doesn't care about ´infringements´, simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by iLOVENZB
No ISP cares about copyright infringment. Without infringement ISP's would be out of business. No leech = No customer. :shutup:Quote:
Originally Posted by SonnentierThe best security measure is to use a provider that doesn't care about ´infringements´, simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by iLOVENZB
Completely true, the only reason they will probably act and send you a cease and desist letter is if some movie company gets really anal about it and goes on a crusade.Quote:
No ISP cares about copyright infringment. Without infringement ISP's would be out of business. No leech = No customer.
Well, under DMCA, the ISP becomes legally liable if they don't pass on the C&D letter, and no ISP is gonna have a legal battle with RIAA/MPAA/ect for one customer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Comfort101
No isp is going to micromanage what their users do, and they dont care. Who would really want to keep track of what millions of people are downloading, what sites they go to, ect. They don't have the storage space for the logs. They're completely reactive. Law enforcement asks for something, the ISP agrees to give the info. C&D letter comes in, they pass it on. Its not really a big deal or hard to figure out.
A good thing if you're in a very small country (I guess you're in Germany, I lived there for 4 years) but in the U.S., you'd be lucky to have two providers, most folks only have the choice of ONE. Lots have NONE. (we're talking 'broadband', which in the U.S. means something faster than ISDN/128K)Quote:
Originally Posted by SonnentierThe best security measure is to use a provider that doesn't care about ´infringements´, simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by iLOVENZB
Downright pitiful in most areas outside of the big cities.
SSL is one thing, but it doesn't mask the destination. VPN's are gaining lots of users now, and it DOES mask the traffic destination.
It would be nice to live in a country where Cease and Desist letters have absolutely no effect at all, wouldn't it? If I was ever sent one, I could sue the one who sent the letter for harassing me. God bless the laws of this (Nordic) welfare state.
Everyone should know the present system is living on borrowed time. Money makes the world go round. Several parties want a bit of the money cake too.
Therefore, t's only time before the bigger funded mobs get their way.
However, I would guess this war will rage on for at least 30 year as there is too much to be done before you could even contemplate defeating piracy, with the systems as they stand.
Additionally the entire world is skint so them keeping hold of their market share is a problem in itself, never mind hangin' wee Joe Public out to dry.
Analytically sound?
Don't worry.Be happy.
Really, the BIGGEST #1 contributor to all of this is cheap rentals.
There is a big acknowledgment of this when the studios bought off Netflix in the U.S. to give them an expanded 'window' between when a disc is out for sale and when it becomes 'available' for rental.
However, the more independent rental outfits have not gone along, so there are loopholes. And of course, if one simply waits a bit...
As far as the internet, especially for those in more restrictive countries, I think we'll see a rapid rise in the use of VPN providers.
VPN wouldn't protect you, and why would you need a VPN to download?
Rethink your statement. Most of the ISP's (particularly those that use 'shared/partyline' systems (like cablecos) have pretty strict AUP's (acceptable use provisions) that specifically target P2P, Newsgroups, ect. They can (and have) blocked and messed around with both ports and traffic they see going to and from known IP addresses of (for usenet) large servers.Quote:
Originally Posted by cola
Of course, for that they don't block, they do have limits/caps, particularly on 'consumer' level accounts (Comcast, for instance, is universally at 250GB/Month); most of the other cablecos and even some DSL providers are MUCH lower (Frontier has a 5GB/Month cap).
VPN's completely and totally hide BOTH the actual traffic (like SSL) but ALSO the destination/source addresses, except, of course, the VPN providers, who constantly rotate their IP addresses.
Most usenet providers have SSL already, don't need a VPN for that. Not to mention that they use multiple ports, including nonstandard ports. Don't see a need for a VPN.
Your ISP doesn't care what you download until they get a C&D letter, and you won't get one by downloading on a common carrier protected service.
don't recall any news of ppl downloading on usenet being caught....
Isn't the problem here more on the side of the usenet service provider? After all, they are the ones that hold the logs of what you upload/download? Linux ISOs, no problem. But, for leechers, they should be more concerned about the usenet provider logs than they are with ISPs. Use SSL and the ISP can't see your traffic and likely doesn't care. But logs can exist forever. Most usenet providers claim to not retain them, but how does one really know? Especially considering the consequences of being wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted-Celle
Usenet providers don't log downloads, and they don't log uploads (thats what X-Trace header is for). ISPs don't care what you're downloading either, until they're hit with a C&D.
That's my point, how do we REALLY know that? Astraweb says they do not log up/downloads, but how do we know? Are they a reputable company or a small shop being run out of a basement that has grown due to demand? They don't even use encryption on their login page to the website. Not the sign of a professional company. I'm not against Astraweb here, but just using them as an example. How does one really know they do not keep logs? I think it just comes down to trust.Quote:
Originally Posted by colaQuote:
Originally Posted by Ted-Celle
Usenet providers don't log downloads, and they don't log uploads (thats what X-Trace header is for). ISPs don't care what you're downloading either, until they're hit with a C&D.