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

[Brett Buck]

Gopher!

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[jgagnon]

A return to Gopher would be an improvement for a good portion of the HTML space.

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

[xtracto]

...

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Dishevel]

I liked Gopher. Right hand fingers on the arrow keys and left hand thumb on the space bar. Flying through the internet at the speed of light. gopher rocked.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[BarryJacobsen]

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)

This was posted on Newzbin a while back:

Server logs and user activity Some subscribers are a little concerned about privacy in the light of the current litigation so to put their minds at rest we thought we would explain what the privacy implications are of our logs. We are currently keeping webserver logs for a period which is sufficient to allow us to defend ourselves against web attacks. However we cannot tell from our logs what NZBs you have downloaded. At all. If we can't do this then neither can any complainant with access to our logs. Furthermore we rotate old logs so that they are deleted. No request has been made for our logs during the discovery phase of litigation and due to the nature of the legal process that request would have to have been made a long time ago: it wasn't. They cannot now, legally, have it; and moreover they dont actually seem that interested either. The fact is this: they are gunning for Newzbin not you. Bottom line: We cannot tell anyone what NZBs you have been using whether those are for Linux distros, porn or just embarrassing lawful material. Don't worry.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[commodore64_love]

It's possible to make websites act as fast as gopher, if you strip away all the garbage and focus on plain text plus maybe 1 or 2 GIF ads (to pay the bills).

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[icebraining]

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.

What? NNTP servers store the content, while bittorrent servers (both the torrent files repositories and the trackers) never do. In fact, if you decouple the .torrent file sharing from the tracker, you can have trackers that know nothing about the content, not even the torrent name (only some hashes), or even trackerless torrents.

Bittorrent is much harder to stop; the only way to do it is to convince each ISP to implement DPI filters and play cat and mouse with the developers of bittorrent clients, and it'll only end if they basically turn the Internet into TV 2.0.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Spad]

See my post below - afaik this judgement applies only to movies that MPA members hold the copyright to and not to other movies or, indeed, other media.

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

[ArundelCastle]

2) when do they start going after the usenet providers themselves?

Hard to say, but they'll probably stop once they find government servers that have a Usenet feed.

alt.iron.margaret.thatcher.fist.fist.fist

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

[GeckoAddict]

Plus, they already got the logs from NSA.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[harl]

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

But can you prove that in court? If you send someone 99.9% of a torrent will they be able to watch the movie? If it's rared they won't even be able to open it.

You didn't make a copy. Oh you copied part of it? How does that work without making use of the digit 1 infringement against every copyrighted work ever?

With BT style P2P it's possible to never send anyone the full work. This includes the original seeder. How have you made a copy at that point?

It's a legal loophole. No one makes a copy yet everyone ends up with a copy. There's no law against possession of an illegally made copy the only crime is illegally making a copy.

This is why they had to create the secondary crime of contributing to or accessory to copyright infringement.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[value_added]

Newzbin are an indexing site; one of many.

Worth pointing out that some of the larger usenet providers also index their content and make it available for searches. Hell, even the makers of Newsbin (the client program of a similar name) does it and sells it to customers for a $5/month.

I guess Rule No. 1 for usenet providers is don't base your business model on a tarted-up search. For everyone else, terrabytes of "data" will continue to be posted to usenet on a daily basis. Finding what you want may be a little less convenient.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[maxume]

Modern stream formats are pretty resilient. If you send someone 50% of a movie, about half of what they get will be somewhat watchable. If you send them 99%, they will notice a little bit of corruption here or there.

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:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[icebraining]

If they store it, how can you say they don't control it?

If you mean they can't be persecuted legally because it's all automatic and they don't manually accept the files, that's absurd because TPB didn't manage the files manually either, nor did they store the content, and yet they were convicted for it.

Since they actually control and store the content (while they may not manage it manually), they'll have to take it down if they get DMCA emails, or can be prosecuted on any European country for illegal distribution of content.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[AvitarX]

It doesn't matter the nuances. You are defending a serious charge, not a petty one.

You can argue those nuances all you want, I pay $.20 / GB to not have that risk (though lightning has been demonstrated to me more likely to strike me).

While you try to defend that your distribution of 50% of a work to someone is not distribution, I can never distribute and support the network in other ways.

Also, we all know that you're .rar'ed .torrent is a scam and almost certainly non-infringing (well, you'll give me a password if I visit your website...)

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Jonmash]

FYI, newzbin had over 700,000 members. It is very likely that one (or more) of your friends is a member. Would you like them to be shot in the head? Now STFU and get on with your life.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[HungryHobo]

it's not a legal loophole.
If I'm a publisher and I only print half of some book and sell it without permission from the copyright holder I'm still fucking with their copyright.
Yes yes 1 bit is not infringement but 20 pages certainly is and if I'm getting a book off bittorrent chances are I'll upload a decent portion of the book while I'm downloading it.

It's the same silliness where people claim it isn't infringing if you send someone an encrypted copyrighted work since without the password it's useless. etc etc etc.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[harl]

Technically at 0.0000000000000001% they have something watchable even if it's only a single part of a single frame.

Again I ask at what point is less than 100% equal to 100%? At what point is that string of gibberish an illegally made copy?

What's the lower bound? If there is a lower bound what happens if the file is posted in x parts each smaller than the lower bound? Maybe encoded such that they don't use any binary characters. Sorry had to throw that in.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[maxume]

I imagine intent is a great deal more important than the technical gibberish you are going on about.

Of course, it is also likely that many bittorrent users have no idea they are uploading the files, but they are obviously trying to download stuff, and a lot of the programs make it pretty clear that you should 'continue to share' the torrent, so the argument is going to look an awful lot like a guy with hair plugs.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[shark72]

"First: If copying part of a work isn't a defense then your post is infringement as it is partially a copy of copyright protected material."

No, his quoting of your post falls well within fair use doctrine. Slashdotters like to make fair use doctrine into something that it's not, but this is an instance where it definitely applies. Seriously -- everybody should understand this.

As others have pointed out, people with a basic understanding of the law tend to imagine there are loopholes where there aren't. Copyright law is one area that's rife with imaginary loopholes. It doesn't work that way, for a couple of reasons. First, gaping loopholes tend to get closed upon discovery. Secondly, and more importantly, the court system isn't made up of unthinking robots -- it's run by real people, and the laugh test and the duck test tend apply in the courts just as they do at your place of work. The courts also know slippery slopes when they see them; that's what your "6th word" and "digit 1" examples appear to be.

To be sure, copyright law does contain various instances of what many Slashdotters might consider to be "loopholes," but they tend to be to the benefit of the copyright owner, not the pirate. For instance, in the US the law states that when you sell a recording you must pay the composer and lyricist about eight cents apiece (these are on top of contractual royalties), but if you are both the composer and the lyricist, you don't get to double-dip and collect $0.16. Since the big corporations tend to get to write the laws, this won't change soon.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[DAldredge]

You know what I meant. And, if you get enough money they will sell you full rights but it will cost a lot more than just a simple limited license.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[amorsen]

It isn't a copy, because I wrote it myself. Copyright law is smarter than that. If you do dd if=/dev/urandom of=avatar.mkv, that is NOT a copy of Avatar. Not even if it happens to be bit-for-bit identical to another avatar.mkv which was generated directly from the movie master. The first avatar.mkv can be freely distributed, and you can't even get copyright on it because there was no creative process involved.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[harl]

Intent only matters if it's written into the law. That's how law works. That's how law is exploited. That's how guilty people go free and innocent people are locked up. Justice is blind and all that.

For you yanks it's title 17 Chapter 1 Sections 107-122. In chaper 1 alone there's more law on what isn't a copy than what is a copy. Based on the fact that more time is spent on partial copies the intent of the law is obviously that this is an important section. The intent is to have some lower bounds on copy. The intent is that not all copies are copies.

But that's just random guessing because you didn't write it. I didn't write it. We'll have to go find the original author and ask them what the intent of the law is because all we have is this useless letter of the law. What do they expect us to do with that?

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Sancho]

More importantly, copyright infringement can apply even if you haven't made a complete copy. Getting pedantic about percentages is pointless.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[tecnico.hitos]

What if it isn't commercially available anymore?

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Snaller]

"It's a legal loophole."

The courts would have to not punish people for it to actually be a loophole.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[gamecrusader]

gopher = cattyshack

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[shark72]

"That's a complete change of subject. I never said anything about fair use. We are talking about partial copy."

Right -- you claimed his quoting your post was infringement; I pointed out that this would actually fall under fair use doctrine in this instance. You're correct that it was not you who brought up fair use -- I did.

Specifically at what point does the random gibberish of a partial copy turn into a "work."

That's generally for the courts to decide. It's not as cut-and-dry as saying that you may distribute X minutes of a film that's Y minutes long (or insert Megabytes if you like). I think you already know this; you described it very well when you wrote "People think it's clear cut but it's really more a ball of wibbly wobbly law-y wawey."

Here's an interesting article on fair use as it applies to sampling music -- not quite the same as your question of how much of a movie you can distribute, but it should give an idea of the vagaries involved:

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/fairusemusic.html

"Wow 1 person doing two jobs and getting paid for each is a loophole? I think you need to look that word up."

This might be a reading comprehension issue. As I wrote, it's what many Slashdotters might consider to be a loophole. At any rate, the point is that they are not paid for each. You'll make more money per track sold if you write the lyrics for Song A and the music for Song B, than if you write both the words and music for Song A.

As for your question about why uploaders are sued, and not downloaders, it's simple: U.S. copyright law is largely about distribution. When we say "infringing copyright" it's a shorthand way of saying that we are infringing on the rights of the copyright holder; that is, the right to say how the product is distributed (I'm generalizing here but I hope you get the idea). Simply having a copy of a work that you didn't pay for isn't directly infringing on the rights of the rightsholder. Is that what you meant by a loophole?

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[harl]

The RIAA goes after bearshare and limewire users. The big BT cases have been against trackers. Using laws custom written to target them.

Please cite a case against a BT user.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[DAldredge]

Can you give examples of such things?

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Xtifr]

You didn't make a copy. Oh you copied part of it? How does that work without making use of the digit 1 infringement against every copyrighted work ever?

Ooh, I like your logic. Lets try that in syllogistic format:

An individual bit is a subset of a digital work;
Individual bits are not subject to copyright,
Therefore, all subsets of digital works are not subject to copyright.

Wow, if only I'd realized that all members of a set must be identical, it would have made my logic classes so much easier.

Horses eat hay;
Horses are mammals,
Therefore, all mammals eat hay.

I'm going to save a lot of money on catfood! :)

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Xtifr]

What's the lower bound on that?

Larger than a bit, smaller than the entire work; if it's truly a borderline case, the jury gets to decide.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[DAldredge]

If the vast majority of people were willing to pay then why don't they?  Nothing is stopping them from going to Amazon.com or any of the thousands of other sites and buying what they want.

But that would actually cost them money which is something they are willing to do.  And just because Newzbin makes a profit doesn't mean their business is legit hell the guy selling stolen property on the street corner is making a profit too.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[harl]

Those are your conclusions not mine. They illustrate your logic and position not mine.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[nurb432]

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?

Yes ( and i bet its grounds for warrants to search your home/pc ), and looks like they are heading that direction now.

Gotta love getting in hot water decades later for doing something that was legal.. "you used usenet... that makes you a pirate"

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Jenming]

I believe the cut off point for fair use is generally considered 10%. If you copy/distribute/include in your own work more then that you are violating the copyright.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You don't have to copy an entire work to infringe copyright, and your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that you do.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

copying part of something is a defense, like almost hitting someone but pulling the punch at the last second, its not a punch until it lands, just wind. The crime it the completion of the act, without that you have not act to be a crime. Its true in full acknowledgement of that, attempted murder is a seperate crime with a seperate schedule of punishments. I don't think they have made attempted copyright infringment a crime as yet.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[harl]

So you think the digit 1 infringes all copyright protected works because it's a partial copy?

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[harl]

Can you please cite a case or piece of law?

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[sixsixtysix]

couldn't one also argue that an mp3 is not a copy of a cd track, an xvid file not a dvd copy, and a cam definitely not the film reel? derivitive works perhaps, but not copies.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[shentino]

Part of a work is still a derived work.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

No, of course not. I live in the real world, and here we have shades other than black and white. Remarkably, trained lawyers and experienced judges are even capable of perceiving them.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Anci3nt of Days]

Talking from Australian law here (I believe it is substantially similar in most commonwealth countries):

Copying exists when any 'substantial part' is copied [Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)]. There is no strict 10% cutoff, nor any set %. It is however common policy not to copy over this to be on the safe side (you will find posters and notices about this in most libraries).

Main reason for the 10% suggestion is the case 'University of New South Wales v Moorhouse' regarding authorisation infringement. It is more about protecting the library than any allowance individual copying.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Anci3nt of Days]

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

In the recent iiNet case (Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (No. 3) [2010] FCA 24), using BT to share a file, no matter how many times the file was downloaded, how long it was available, or who each part was downloaded from, were considered a single infringement. The decision is being appealed but the decision will still be persuasive for 2 years or so.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Xtifr]

Not to the degree that you seem to be asking for. There is no exact percentage or number of characters/bytes that forms an exact legal boundary. It's judged on a case-by-case basis. A whole lot of law is based on the concept of what a "reasonable person" (e.g. a jury member) would conclude.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[xtracto]

But can you prove that in court? If you send someone 99.9% of a torrent will they be able to watch the movie? If it's rared they won't even be able to open it.

Your post is the typical slashdot wishful thinking. It HAS been proven in court (see the RIAA vs People cases) that this kind of defence does not work. Some time ago someone linked to a piece about "the color of the law" or of your actions. This means that in general it is the INTENTION of what you were doing what counts and not the technical details.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Nursie]

And then I can store the movies on my media server and stream them to any PC in the house? And take them with me on a laptop drive when I travel? Transcode for PSP?

Oh wait, ripping and encoding tools are also illegal because they bypass anti-circumvention methods.

There is a better product available from the pirates, money or no. Hell in the past I've both downloaded and bought movies (Futurama, for instance) because I wanted to pay but also wanted the convenience of having an unrestricted electronic copy, or because they came out two weeks earlier in another country, or...

Until these issues are fixed, people will pirate. Some will pirate anyway. Some suffer from a bizarre form of digital kleptomania and never watch half of what they download. Me? Prices need to fall a little IMHO, and when movies can be bought in a DRM free, convenient form, I'll buy in.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[dargaud]

So, who has invitations for newzbin so we can evaluate if those piracy claims have any validity in them, heh ?!?

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[kevinbr]

Yeah back in the day when I saw a web browser for the first time and how SLOW it was, I laughed and predicted gopher would rule the known universe. Not one of my finer moments ....

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

The term in English & Welsh law is "substantial":
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_10

It isn't an exact percentage, because the law is designed to be interpreted on a case by case basis.

A discussion of "different types of substantial" which might be worth a read is here:
http://www.ipit-update.com/copy15.htm

It has begun

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally usenet showed up on the radar.

Intent

[GPLDAN]

Isohunt is treading the same line, you can go to Isohunt's main page and read up on the legal fights. Much of it has to do with the perception that it is actively aiding users in finding or distributing illegal content. It's the equivalent, here in Chicago, to the old Maxwell Street market. Everybody knew if you lost your hubcaps, you went to Maxwell Street to buy them back. But as long as the street organizers themselves kept up some semblance of actual legit commerce, they city turned a blind eye.

http://home.netcom.com/~cowdery/maxwell/mamoser.html

In this case, Usenet contains what I affectionately call a "Rared Sale" (get it?) - where everything is less than a quarter. In fact, it's free! And as long as we all remember the First Rule of Usenet: Nobody talks about Usenet, then it's all fine. Apparently, these blokes forgot that rule.

Re:Intent

[commodore64_love]

If Isohunt disappears, where can I go to find my NapisyPL tv show rips?

Back to article - No need to kill Usenet. Just go back to the old system of sharing information directly from one sysop's computer to another sysop's computer, and then have the info filtered downward to the local users' computers.

Re:Intent

[Aladrin]

Actually, Newzbin -is- actively helping. They have 'editors' that go through the raw data and form indexed downloads manually and filter out serial numbers.

I'm not condemning the service, just saying that it's not 100% passive like Google or isoHunt.

Re:Intent

[Aladrin]

My mistake, then. I assume it was an engine that worked like Google.

was only a matter of time..

[BitwiseX]

But as usual the cart is put in front of the horse.

I could take my house off of every map in existence.. and you'll still be able to find my house if you've been there.
If you don't going to go after illegal content, go after ILLEGAL CONTENT! If the content is there it will be found.. no matter how many signs and arrows to it you remove.

Here we go again..

Re:Recommendations for an Indexing service?

[bds1986]

Nice try, MPAA.

The shutdown of freedom, need for adhoc internet

[assemblerex]

Splintering the internet by language(check) ban of proxies(in the works) usenet targeted for destruction (suspected)
Money and bought politicians will strive to plug any holes in the internet beyond government control.
This is why adhoc wireless is so important.

Damnit!!

[Stenchwarrior]

I switched to a paid Usenet service because it was more "private" than torrent. Does this mean I'm going to have to back to BitchX and CLI to get movies?

/dcc send MPAA "my ass"

Re:Damnit!!

[Killer Orca]

I switched to a paid Usenet service because it was more "private" than torrent. Does this mean I'm going to have to back to BitchX and CLI to get movies?

/dcc send MPAA "my ass"

No, this is only an indexer of .nzb files, which are analogous to .torrent files; it was also a pay site, there are others out there that are free or automated with ssl connections, so I hear.

You may want to upgrade to an SSL connection though if you are worried, the ISP logs will still show you connecting to a usenet provider, but what you are downloading will not be discernible.

Re:Damnit!!

[muppetman462]

Umm....No.....only thing is doing is messing up a great service. I wonder if the MPAA is going to go after Google now because you can search for nzb files via google......

Re:Damnit!!

[Stenchwarrior]

If they succeed in making this indexer "play ball", does this not set the precedence for all other indexers? I don't use Newzbin so this currently doesn't affect me but could it possibly down the line?

Thanks for the SSL recommendation BTW, I will check that today.

Re:Damnit!!

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yeah, except for that tiny and important deal that Google's indexer is completely passive while this was a site that was recruiting people to actively go out and provide the links that their site indexed.

Re:Damnit!!

[BarryJacobsen]

If they succeed in making this indexer "play ball", does this not set the precedence for all other indexers? I don't use Newzbin so this currently doesn't affect me but could it possibly down the line?

Thanks for the SSL recommendation BTW, I will check that today.

Newzbin is unique (as far as I know) in that it has people (editors) create the "reports" which indicate which files are what. Other services that exist don't use people and use an AI to try to determine what each file/post is. It appears it's Newzbin's help documentation for the editors that got them in trouble.

Re:Damnit!!

[bit9]

Using SSL is definitely a step up, but of course, even this won't help you if the MPAA gets a judge to issue an order forcing your Usenet provider to log all of its users' downloads. I use a paid Usenet service as well, and my concern is that my provider will someday be slapped with such an order, along with a gag order to prevent them from warning their users about the logging.

I'm thinking maybe, at long last, the writing is on the wall for Usenet - at least as far as me using it is concerned. I have too much to lose (job,assets), and too many people depending on me (wife, kids). It's just not worth the risk anymore. No matter how much I despise the MPAA, RIAA, etc, the obsolete business models of the companies they represent, and their strong-arm tactics, I stand to lose FAR more than I stand to gain. I will continue to donate to the EFF, but no more Usenet downloads for me - not even the non-infringing variety.

Re:Damnit!!

[BarryJacobsen]

Using SSL is definitely a step up, but of course, even this won't help you if the MPAA gets a judge to issue an order forcing your Usenet provider to log all of its users' downloads. I use a paid Usenet service as well, and my concern is that my provider will someday be slapped with such an order, along with a gag order to prevent them from warning their users about the logging.

I'm thinking maybe, at long last, the writing is on the wall for Usenet - at least as far as me using it is concerned. I have too much to lose (job,assets), and too many people depending on me (wife, kids). It's just not worth the risk anymore. No matter how much I despise the MPAA, RIAA, etc, the obsolete business models of the companies they represent, and their strong-arm tactics, I stand to lose FAR more than I stand to gain. I will continue to donate to the EFF, but no more Usenet downloads for me - not even the non-infringing variety.

My understanding is that in every single trial where someone has been prosecuted it was for uploading (due to the fact that copyright restricts the ability of one to create a copy which would be uploading) which is automatically done in P2P environments. When using USENET (as long as you are not posting), you are only downloading.

Re:Damnit!!

[Stenchwarrior]

That's exactly the reason I switched to Usenet. My wife complains about the $14.99 per month, but at least I'm not forced into uploading even part of the files like I am though torrent. The downside is that I have to constantly check and repair the files I get from Usenet with quickpar. Still...it provides at least some peice of mind. That and the fact that I've also started using PeerBlock.

Re:Damnit!!

[Stenchwarrior]

Is it possible that my ISP is blocking port 563? That's the port I have to use for SSL. When I configure my client to use that port (provided to me by the newsgroup) it will not connect.

Re:Damnit!!

[harl]

How exactly is a central server log recording every single file you download private? Additionally you now have a nice financial trail making things eve less private.

Re:Damnit!!

[bit9]

My understanding is that in every single trial where someone has been prosecuted it was for uploading (due to the fact that copyright restricts the ability of one to create a copy which would be uploading) which is automatically done in P2P environments. When using USENET (as long as you are not posting), you are only downloading.

That may be, but I no longer feel comfortable that being a "download-only" user is sufficient to keep me safe from potentially ruinous lawsuits. Joel Tennenbaum's case was a real wake-up call for me.

Yes, Tennenbaum also uploaded songs, and yes, he was stupid enough to admit to it. However, we're talking about 31 songs here. The RIAA was more than willing to ruin this man's life for a measly 31 songs! Do you really think they only went after him because he had also uploaded those 31 songs? Clearly, they wanted to make an example of him, to scare people like me away from downloading OR uploading copyrighted music.

It worked. I no longer find the reward of free music (or movies or e-books or whatever) worth the risk of having my life ruined, no matter how remote that possibility might be. NOT TO MENTION what it would do to my wife and kids. I am my family's sole provider, and the kind of work I do requires extensive background checks. Something like this (what happened to Tennenbaum) would totally ruin me and my family. For what? So I can watch some stupid movie right now rather than having to wait a whole 2 days for Netflix to send it to me? Pardon my language, but FUCK THAT!

Re:Damnit!!

[ezelkow1]

It might be possible but check with your provider that they dont offer other ports as well. I know on mine, usenetserver, they offer 3 ssl ports in case the first one is blocked, one of them is a generic 8080 so just about anything can reach it.

Re:Damnit!!

[Jedi Alec]

You may want to upgrade to an SSL connection though if you are worried, the ISP logs will still show you connecting to a usenet provider, but what you are downloading will not be discernible.

Hmm, last time I checked, my ISP *is* a usenet provider. Will SSL still help if i connect to their servers?

Re:Damnit!!

[Killer Orca]

I'm going to hazard a guess and say no, most ISP Usenet services are meager compared to the paid ones so very few, if any, will offer SSL. If the ISP does offer SSL then you should be fine, I would double-check with your ISP about this situation though.

Finally...

[frank_adrian314159]

We will get you pirates and prove that Global Warming is a hoax, once and for all!!!

Either that or we'll finally kill off Usenet - win-win, either way.

Re:Standard Arguments:

[Lunix Nutcase]

ISPs aren't and never have been common carriers. This is a widespread falsity spread around by Slashdotters.

Limited scope

[Spad]

As far as I can tell from the limited information available and still pending the final injunction details, this judgement only applies to movies and not any other content that may or may not be indexed on Usenet.

At least the judge showed sense in ruling that the MPA couldn't get an injection banning the publishing of content that they didn't hold the copyright to; I know they like to think that they control everything, but sometimes reality gets in the way.

Re:Right

[Per Wigren]

Take the blue pill...

its only a matter of time..

[zcold]

Whats next? Rapidshare, megaupload etc... Funny how there are so many sites outside of those as well... What a waste of time and money... The best way to get people to do something is to tell them they can't...All this litigation is working well for piracy..

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download

[TheDarkener]

All of these responses are invalid. This has to do with the fact that Usenet indexing services are agnostic to the content being indexed (I.E. They are not biased toward copyrighted material vs. non-copyrighted material).

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download

[Lunix Nutcase]

So they are invalid because it points out for all to see the huge whole in your argument? Besides, anyone who has been to Newzbin can clearly see that there is a huge bias towards indexing copyrighted material. Or do you actually have proof to the contrary?

When will people learn

[Snaller]

or - why are people are so stupid.

If you write about breaking the law on your site, you are going to get nailed soon or later.

We've seen that again and again - its not that they are overlooking you, its that THEY are overworked and haven't gotten around to you yet.

I don't get it.

[gillbates]

Not all movies are illegal. Some don't contain "objectionable content". Some - mostly the kind I'm rediscovering - have elapsed the protection of copyright.

What sites like Newzbin do is provide a central repository for content owners to search for infringing content. If I had my book/movie/video game being pirated, believe me, I would find sites like this very helpful in shutting down the uploaders. At least, those within the relevant legal jurisdiction.

Even the police like an anonymous tip. It's almost as if the content cartels *WANT* you to pirate their content, so they can then sue you for ridiculous amounts of money. (Why get 99 cents a song, when you can get statutory damages of a few hundred thousand dollars?)

Don't Get Caught, Derp!

[Greyfox]

Honestly, if you're going to base your ENTIRE BUSINESS MODEL around something illegal, don't fucking TALK about that shit! For God's sake! Ok look at Bernie Madoff, he successfully didn't get caught for decades, even when several very smart people were yelling at the FTC that what he was doing had to be fraud! How? He didn't talk about it! When the FTC came 'round and asked "Hey, are you defrauding people" he was all like "No!" and then he made fun of them for even asking and they felt so bad about questioning him about it, they just kind of wandered off.

The wrong way to go about basing your business around illegal stuff would be to, say, have meetings about how everything you're doing is completely illegal and then sending your meeting minutes to the ISO auditors. That always leads to questions like "This bit here about where you're illegally benefiting from copyright infringement... what's that about?" It goes downhill from there.

If you're uncomfortable being compared to Bernie Madoff perhaps you should consider a career in something less illegal. The rest of you, only have meetings about your illegal stuff in the bathroom with the water running and don't keep minutes of those meetings! For fuck's sake... This isn't rocket science people!

Re:Don't Get Caught, Derp!

[MattskEE]

(Obligatory Office Space quote)

MICHAEL
I wish we had never done this. What are we going to do? You know what I
can't figure out? How is it that all these stupid, Neanderthal, Mafia
guys can be so good at crime and smart guys like us can suck so badly
at it?

SAMIR
We're new to it, though. If we had more experience -

MICHAEL
No. No. Y'know what I think? I think we're screwed. There's evidence
all over that building to link it to us. Even if we could launder
money, I wouldn't want to. If we're caught while laundering money,
we're not going to go to white-collar-resort-prison. No, no, no. We're
gonna go to federal-reserve-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison.

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download

[BarryJacobsen]

So they are invalid because it points out for all to see the huge whole in your argument? Besides, anyone who has been to Newzbin can clearly see that there is a huge bias towards indexing copyrighted material. Or do you actually have proof to the contrary?

There would only be a bias towards indexing copyrighted material if the ratio of [copyrighted indexed]/[copyrighted available on usenet] is greater than [non-copyrighted indexed]/[non-copyrighted available on usenet]. Otherwise they are just faithfully indexing what is there.

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download

[TheDarkener]

So they are invalid because it points out for all to see the huge whole in your argument? Besides, anyone who has been to Newzbin can clearly see that there is a huge bias towards indexing copyrighted material. Or do you actually have proof to the contrary?

1) No, they are invalid because the indexing services are UNBIASED. Stop trying to spin the argument. I'm being factual here, I'm not trying to persuade.

2) "...anyone who has been to Newzbin can clearly see that..." This is the same bullshit wordage I hear on the news. Again, I'm not trying to persuade your opinion of what content actually IS on Newzbin. I'm arguing that it isn't Newzbin's fault. They are an indexing service. It is the users themselves who upload the copyrighted material. The users are responsible for the law breaking. Not the medium.

---
If this was actually enforceable, why not go after TDK, Maxell and Sony for selling 100-CD/DVD-R spindles? I mean, seriously, who really uses 100 CDs/DVDs for anything BUT copying RIAA music and MPAA movies?

Right? Right??

Does Usenet still need tiny size limits on files?

[nuckfuts]

The reason that NZB's even exist is that large files uploaded to Usenet get broken up into a ridiculous number of small fragments. It then becomes a chore to locate and reassemble all the pieces.

Bandwidth and storage capacities have increased tremendously over the years that Usenet has been around. Why do people who operate NNTP servers still impose such restrictive limits on file size?

Re:Does Usenet still need tiny size limits on file

[maxume]

Because file transfers aren't absolutely reliable. With small file sizes, most of the parts make it from server to server, and people already have a bunch of ways of dealing with a little bit of missing data (use more than 1 provider, par2, etc.).

I imagine the fact that a change would favor new users and irritate (some/many?) established users is also a factor.

Re:Does Usenet still need tiny size limits on file

[drinkypoo]

Actually, I think that's an argument in favor of larger post lengths. The less pieces there are, the less filling in you have to do, and the less PAR file downloading you'll need to do to support it.

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download

[westlake]

Just because it's a movie doesn't mean the MPAA owns it.

The MPAA is a trade association. It doesn't "own" anything." Members are drawn form the "big six" studios"

20th Century Fox
Walt Disney
Sony Pictures
Paramount (Viacom)
Universal
Warner

But you'll most likely discover the independent studio has signed on to the MPAA's rating and title registration services. You can't copyright a title, but you can protect it by contract.

Re:This whole discussion should be moot.

[ScentCone]

This whole copyright protection debate is just corporate-sponsored Prohibition for the 21st century. It's unenforceable without totalitarian government control

Spoken just like a person who's never created anything in his life, especially for a living. You do realize (right?) that artists, film makers, muscians, writers - anyone who makes something that is covered by copyright law - can waive those rights any time they want. Which means that the actual people you're bitching about aren't The Eeeevil Corporate Publishers, but the artists who make the conscious, deliberate decision to work with a publisher in order to make a living at what they do. Why aren't you complaining about all of the novelists, painters, photographers, illustrators, designers, composers, recording artists and everyone else who creates material being such big supporters of Totalitarianism? Why? Because you know you're being a jackass, that's why.

Communicating ideas to another person should never be illegal

Go ahead! Communicate an idea. But if you're too lazy to have your own ideas to communicate (even your rant, above, is a lazy regurgitation), how about respecting the wishes of the creative person you want to shamelessly parrot? Some of them have agreed to let other people reproduce their work at will, and most have no choice but to allow properly framed "fair use" excerpts to be introduced into academic and journalistic presentations.

Of course you know all of that. You're just looking for some moral cover so that you can rip off porn, comic books, and your favorite Brittany Spears material without feeling so sleazy about it. Too late.

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.

Re:Standard Arguments:

[BlueParrot]

ISPs aren't and never have been common carriers. This is a widespread falsity spread around by Slashdotters.

This may be true for the specific "common carrier" legal status used in the US. In Europe quite a few countries employ similar principles, though I believe the term "mere conduit" is more frequently used than "common carrier". I'm not completely sure what the EU directives say about it, but ISPs here are generally very skeptical to filtering content precisely because they don't want to be made liable for what they carry, and from the leaks about ACTA it appears one of the main objections from the EU is that they don't want to make ISPs responsible for what users do.

One exception is the United Kingdom, which more or less seems to have volunteered to beta test Orwellian stuff before the US deploys it. Even there, however, the ISPs have recently cried foul at government plans to implement copyright enforcement on the ISP level.

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download

[ShinmaWa]

Actually, you are spinning the argument by misrepresenting the parent's point.

You are arguing that the application software is completely agnostic. This is true, but ultimately irrelevant. The software wasn't sued, Newzbin (the company) was.

The parent is correctly arguing that while the application software is completely agnostic, the people running that software knew damned well what that software was indexing and, in fact, pointed it out explicitly in their user guides and marketing as a feature.

Simple Solution: Encrypt header titles = Fun

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

All anyone would need to do is simply encrypt header titles that are only viewable in specific programs correctly

Then they cant filter them.... and you know they dont want to filter them anyways ;)

First rule about Usenet... dont talk about Usenet.

Cool!

[gilgongo]

Until now, I'd never heard of Newzbin. Now I know about this "usenet" thing you speak of, I will investigate.

Usenet?

[CohibaVancouver]

The Usenet? That thing still around?

Re:This whole discussion should be moot.

[misexistentialist]

the artists who make the conscious, deliberate decision to work with a publisher in order to make a living at what they do.

Not much of a free decision due the corporate control of the market, but of course the vast majority of "artists" "create" such abominable "works" that they need corporate packaging. On the other hand, since mankind's greatest artists were generally poor, there is no reason to feel sleazy about ripping them off. Getting paid for their work indicates that they have failed at art, and perhaps even impedes their potential for success!

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download

[TheDarkener]

Is it really the software makers' responsibility to make sure users only upload non-copyrighted material? Do you have any idea how much manpower that requires? Just ask Youtube. The USER is the one who 'pulls the trigger', not the indexing software maker.

Oh, and please reference where their user guides explicitly said they indexed copyrighted/illegal material.

Re:Standard Arguments:

[Snaller]

Rubbish.
This is the defacto notion all over america not just slashdot. Whilst it may not be entirely enshrined in law, they get treated as such DMCA for instance gives them the status that they wont be liable for third party violations.

The battle of freedom

[nurb432]

We are losing.

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download

[Lunix Nutcase]

Oh, and please reference where their user guides explicitly said they indexed copyrighted/illegal material.

You mean other than when they had a category called "warez" which is a term for pirated software?

Re:Standard Arguments:

[Nerdfest]

Well they damn well should be.

Re:This whole discussion should be moot.

[mykos]

Art existed before copyright law. Art will exist after copyright law.
No amount of blind justification of strict government enforcement or ad hominem attacks against me and others like me will change that.

Re:Usenet is safer than torrenting

[Regnad2k7]

Unless you upload...

You know what's hilarious?

[OrwellianLurker]

I'm a pretty big pirate, and I have spent money to pirate things before. I've bought Rapidshare accounts, and such, so clearly my pirating isn't derived from my lack of will to pay anything. However, due to ridiculously high prices, DRM, and other annoying things that occur during my purchase (or as someone wittily noted, my "rental"), I am encouraged to pirate. I spend roughly $100 a year on tickets to movies at various theaters. I LOVE going to the movies. But I'm a college student with somewhat limited funds. I can't afford to get a ticket whenever I want to see a movie. So for some movies, I pirate and stay home. Does this take away money from the studios? Maybe, but I suspect my piracy has lead to a net gain for many producers and artists. If a better method of seeing movies was introduced, I would pirate less and spend more money that would go towards the creators and publishers (movies are expensive to make!). I would like to see some sort of membership at movie theaters that would allow me to see more movies without depleting all my funds. I would be happy to spend much more on media if the experience was better. I remember downloading some tracks from iTunes years ago, and after noticing how long it took to download individual tracks, I pirated them instead. The iTunes tracks came encumbered with DRM. The pirated tracks were DRM free and higher quality. I don't care if the big music studios go under. A microphone, a guitar, etc don't need big studios to reach large audiences these days (hell, even in the past really). Movies, on the other hand, aren't easily produced (especially movies like Avatar) and are often costly. Instead of treating me like a criminal, treat me like a goddamn aggrieved customers and I'll open my wallet to you again, and more often.

Re:This whole discussion should be moot.

[ScentCone]

No amount of blind justification of strict government enforcement or ad hominem attacks against me and others like me will change that.

Nor will your deliberate (or wildly ignorant) mischaracterization of "idea communication" ever give you moral cover for wanting creative people to be your pet entertainment slaves. What does "blind justification" actually mean, anyway? There's nothing "blind" going on here - it's all very simple. You can't copy somebody's work without their permission, and some people grant that permission in advance, while others don't. You'd prefer to force that creative person to do as you see fit, because you think you are entitled to their day's work. Nothing blind about it - it's plain as day.

It Seems Someone Didn't Like Your Ideas

[Greyfox]

But I'm willing to discuss!

If you don't like the law, change it! Feel free to start a career in politics to change the machine from the inside. I'm sure many political careers started that way!

If you don't want to do that, find some way to promote your ideas while working inside the status quo! Start a company that collects garage bands from around the world and presents them on the Internet, finding a way to pay those artists enough that they're happy, pay you enough that you can keep doing it and make their songs available to everyone for free or cheap. I'd sooner put $10 in a tip jar for a garage band in Japan, Germany or Zimbabwe than buy another song from the RIAA or go to another movie from the MPAA. Go on then, implement what they fear the most. Others have tried, but so far none of them have been successful.

Re:It Seems Someone Didn't Like Your Ideas

[mykos]

I like these ideas very much, and I am quite an activist, willing to put my money (and time) where my mouth is. I will pursue some of these avenues...I would love to--for example--run a non-profit website that accepts and publicizes any artists who are willing to participate.

Imagine the art that might be produced if there wasn't such a heavy screen of publishers and labels between creative people and their earnings!