Newzbin Usenet Indexer Liable For Copyright Infringement

An anonymous reader writes "The world's most popular Usenet indexing site, Newzbin, has been trounced in London's High Court by the movie studios. Held liable for the infringements of its users, later this week Newzbin will be subjected to an injunction which will force it to filter out illegal copies of movies from its NZB index. From the article: 'Newzbin’s help guides were referred to in the decision. They state that the site can help people find what they're looking for, "whether that be obscure music, tv shows, games or movies. Think of us as a TV guide, but we're a guide that applies to Usenet." ... Newzbin has members called "editors" who help to compile reports on material to be found on Usenet. Newzbin's own documentation was used to show that the site encouraged editors to post links to movies. The verdict notes that to assist editors useful links to IMDb and VCDQuality are provided, the latter being useful to provide information about "screeners."'"

Comments

Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Junior J. Junior III]

Time to migrate to a new protocol. What's next, FTP?

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, SFTP, right??

Those who download copyrighted content via NNTP are simply hiding by obscurity. Most of the public doesn't know about NNTP nor is it a "simple" (simple as in guntella, .torrent) method of file sharing. I personally believe that the RIAA/MPAA went after the wrong protocol by attacking torrent and P2P networks when all along those who "know" know that if you want to kill the beast you need to cut off the head (or in this case, the backbone). NNTP also allows for advanced encryption schemes and large amounts of bandwidth. It's a pirate's haven.

The issue with attacking NNTP has been that those who run NNTP services don't control the content whatsoever. They aren't held responsible for what's uploaded to their servers, and I think this is a fundamental issue with regarding net-neutrality.

Usenet is sort of a micro-chasm of the entire internet. Servers host files and peers download and upload data as needed. The servers, in this case, represent the free internet. Unregulated. This is the beginning of effective attempts by the RIAA/MPAA to get their proverbial hands into the Usenet system and restrict it. They'll start on the outside and work their way in to core services, all in the name of protecting "American IP" (read: profits).

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[arkhan_jg]

There's nothing wrong with the protocol. Newzbin are an indexing site; one of many. In their case, they provided a commercial service for hand-categorized nzbs, which are pretty analogous to .torrent files, from a legal point of view at least. That they had categories labelled up for 'screener', 'R5', 'Warez' etc etc along with the documentation explicitly advising editors how to post infringing material.

What's interesting is that they've not been threatened with shut down or massive fines yet, unlike the pirate bay; as far as I'm aware, contributory infringement is illegal in the UK.

So while Newsbin's nzb files will live on as the standard method of collating binary files on usenet, the site itself is destined to be filtered into 'uselessness' (see mininova) even if it isn't shut down with a followup judgement. I expect a number of other indexing sites to spring up, and a number of the existing ones to grow larger - probably hosted in countries that aren't quite so pro-copyright holders as the UK, especially if they don't have contributory copyright infringement laws common in the US and western Europe.

Two thoughts spring to mind;
1) will they get a copy of users search history (complete with creditcard logs linking them to the account)? (and no, I've never been a member)
2) when do they start going after the usenet providers themselves?

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[DAldredge]

How about actually buying the work that you want?

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[t0p]

The protocol isn't the problem. The problem is someone profiting from the online availability of "infringing" material. It's very difficult to portray yourself as a "content-agnostic" search engine merely enabling users to share files when you're turning over £1 million a year.

What I find a little unsettling is the judge's critcism of Newzbin's takedown procedures. From TFA:

Newzbin was also criticized for its “delisting” or notice and takedown procedures, which were referred to as a “cosmetic” and “cumbersome” mechanism designed to “render it impractical” for rights holders to have material removed.

While I have no personal knowledge of how "cumbersome" the procedure is, I don't see why it shouldn't be "cumbersome". If an alleged rights-holder wants his alleged material removed from the index, why shouldn't he have to jump through a few hoops? Why shouldn't the alleged rights-holder have to prove definitively that he owns the rights he claims? If the takedown procedure were too streamlined and gave the alleged rights-holder too much benefit of the doubt we could end up with a situation where any tom dick or harry could make malicious complaints about content they don't own just to cause trouble for the site. I can't just point at any car I like the look of, say "that's mine" and get the police to drag the driver out through the window.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that Newzbin is a service you have to pay for, and that quality Usenet providers also cost money, I don't think the limitation here is people being willing to pay for access to the media they like. Indeed, the vast majority of people are indeed willing to pay... the sticking point is about accessing it in the way you want, and it being at a reasonable price.

Obviously "reasonable" means something different to different people. But, again, the very fact that Newzbin turns a profit shows that there is a demographic of people willing to pay for easy, convenient access to media, who currently are not given a legal way to do so. This doesn't make what they are doing "right"... but it certainly suggests that the current market prices and distribution modes (e.g. DRM) are not optimal.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[AvitarX]

The thing is, with usenet only the uploaders are really committing a serious infringement (and even then only once).

The downloaders are pretty much clean (from serious trouble).

In what we call P2P sharing, the down-loaders are also uploading multiple copies too, causing them to be easy to sue seriously.

It is much easier to pick on the littlest guys (end users), and P2P let them do that.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[dwandy]

How about actually buying the work that you want?

...didn't know that was an option. They all look like licensing or rental deals to me. Actual ownership seems to be something that won't be conferred to the serfs.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[amorsen]

You believe you can circumvent the law by technical means. It doesn't work like that. Copying part of a work isn't a defence; you're still trying to share it.

Re:Does Usenet still need tiny size limits on file

[maxume]

I guess it depends on how the servers handle a bad transfer; if they discard incomplete files, larger files will carry a larger penalty, if they just post the partial file, there shouldn't be much difference.

I suspect inertia is a primary factor.