RIAA Sues Usenet.com

Several readers pointed us to Torrentfreak's coverage of the RIAA's latest move: the major record labels have launched a copyright infringement lawsuit against Usenet.com. The complaint, filed in the federal District Court in New York, accuses Usenet.com of providing access to millions of copyright-infringing files and slams it for touting its service as a "haven for those seeking pirated content." Usenet.com has been refusing the labels' requests to block access to alleged "copyright infringing groups."

Comments

Re:The average user does not know about usenet

[HTH NE1]

And if I remember correctly, it takes some work to create a new group. Not so much under alt.*. As I recall some misbehaving servers would automatically newgroup a newsgroup just by receiving a posting for it. (Do they still bar any proposals for the creation of binaries groups under rec? Do any comp.binaries.* groups survive today?)

A benefit of Usenet is that it is a push technology, not a pull. You could theoretically identify posters--or at least their servers by analyzing bang paths (and determining their forge point)--but downloading was largely anonymous... when NNTP servers were widely distributed and not just in the hands of a few businesses selling access to their massive feeds. You can't find an open NNTP server anymore that lets anyone post. It's far more vulnerable now as a result.

I remember the days of Usenet when porn was not plentiful and you could launch a DDoS on an FTP site just by posting a message that there was porn there. The attack was even more effective when the porn allegation was true.

There is a reason why Usenet was forgotten: it was the birthplace of spam. Though term spam was first coined on IRC from someone on a channel just sending the word "spam" repeatedly to disrupt a discussion and leaving, it manifested into the form of the modern scourge first on Usenet.

Except some of the binaries groups, where the porn spam is about as good or even better than the actual postings from individuals.

Re:Ahh crap

[stefanlasiewski]

I think "domain name" might be a little more accurate.

ATM Machine. Here we go with the semantic arguments ;)

If we can have a 'DNS name server', a DNS name space and a Reserved Top Level DNS Names, why can't we say 'DNS name'?

I say 'DNS name' out of habit, because I used to work with people who used the term 'domain' to refer to a different kind of computer system, and 'Domain name' just caused confusion.

Re:Ahh crap

[entropy42]

I was the original owner of usenet.com - I registered it in 1994 or thereabouts. I sold it to someone (not sure if the present owner or not) for six figures in the late '90s.

Heh, a google search for paulp@usenet.com (my address at the time) yields exactly one result.

Re:Ahh crap

[sumdumass]

Actually, the laws in the US says copying and distributing. There really isn't anything they can do to you for just obtaining a copy. Well, maybe if you know it is pirated or stolen, but if you don't then there really isn't anything.

Think about this, If walmart imports DVD's from China to sell at their discount price that they are known for, then we find out that the contract with the movie companies never went through and they are all pirated, does that make you liable in some way for buying them. The answer is NO. Just like buying Smoke at the corner store or something at the pawn shop doesn't get you in trouble if it turns out to be from a hijacked semi load. It would be a little different then buying the same stuff out of a trunk in an alley though. But then that would likely be the receiving stolen property and nothing to do with copyright. There really isn't anything on the books about obtaining something pirated if you didn't copy or distribute it.