But they are just a carrier, how are they going to 'take down' a file? By issuing a cancel message for the Message-IDs composing the "file" (but with a Distribution: local header as that is as far as their responsibility extends).
Of course, that assumes the party issuing the takedown notice knew to cite the offending articles by Message-ID. The canceled messages will not re-propagate to the server. The poster, anywhere else in the world, could still repost under a new Message-ID (automatically generated for every posting). The cancel messages can even contain the takedown notice in each message body, which would be readable in the newsgroup named "control" and/or in "control.cancel" if it is present.
They wouldn't necessarily even have to cryptographically sign the cancels since they are local, though it might be wise to prevent fellow users of the same server wildly canceling other articles.
These organizations could technically send out their own cancel messages with unrestricted distribution, though I'm not familiar with the current state of the art in preventing forged cancels. If spammers have truly lost interest in Usenet, it may have come to the point where cancel messages are generally ignored.
make it a felony to use spyware or keyloggers to damage 10 or more computers; Expect an exception amendment to the bill on behalf of the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc. from Senator Orrin Hatch to try granting themselves immunity again.
That only works for going after uploaders, not downloaders. True. But it also identifies servers that may be open where people are also downloading. And every server that trafficked in that message.
And that's another distinction for Usenet vs. P2P: on Usenet, people actually upload; on P2P nobody uploads (serving a downloader is not uploading).
Also, most providers have "anonymous" posting, especially the kind of provider that advertises high retention of binary groups. So although you can find out what server or provider the uploader is using, you'd need to subpoena the operator's records to get an IP address. Subpoena? What country do you think this is? We just data-tap the backbone for National Security here, capture every packet and mine it later.
Anyway, an enforcement body could subscribe to multiple news services, identify a piece of illegal content on one server, get its unique Message-ID (must be globally unique to propagate), request the Path header of the same article on all the other servers to find all the servers that trafficked in that content, and file a subpoena to record the net traffic in and out of those servers for a week. Mine the recorded data for downloads of that message, for who downloaded them, serve a few ISPs with identity requests, and start your raids and arrests.
No, NNTP is a protocol. Usenet is a system built upon that protocol (and UUCP, and other transport methods; see the wiki page), with messages composed under RFC 1036. Much like the WWW is built atop the HTTP protocol and its related RFCs.
Say, did the usefor group ever produce a new RFC besides "Son of RFC 1036"? I should have something to show for all the e-mail spam I now have to filter from participating in that mailing list.
RIAA will sue itself for providing the music to pirate.
Not before suing the estate of Thomas Alva Edison for his US Patent 200,521 having the sole purpose of creating unauthorized re-performances of copyrighted works by vibrating air molecules. And they'll make the charges stick by alleging it to be a continuous conspiracy of perpetuating such devices from invented form to modern technology.
Also, I'd like to see them find out just who is connecting to what news server. Follow the Path of bangs.
Re:The average user does not know about usenet
on
RIAA Sues Usenet.com
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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:The average user does not know about usenet
on
RIAA Sues Usenet.com
·
· Score: 1
And because of this lawsuit, as it gains momentum from the RIAA, this will create a Streisand Effect, and others will be introduced into another realm of the internet that isn't on a web browser. Please, no. We don't need another Endless September. The last one just ended only 1 2/3 years ago.
Guess IRC and finally Gopher will be up next:/ Jasper: [whispering] Are they talking about the bordello? Abe: No! The burlesque house. So just keep your mouth shut.
Also there appears to be no mention of support of HD-DVD or BluRay media. No mention of them under enhancements for DVD Player and I can't find any mention of UDF 2.5 file system support.
Dot: Well, we know physical force can't hurt nulls. We'll have to try containment. Phong: Do not worry. I have prepared something for just such an emergency. Bob: You're prepared for a giant monster made entirely of nulls stomping around Mainframe? Phong: That is correct! Bob: How do you plan for that? Phong: Ah, lucky guess?
Of course, Google don't design for Google, hence they aren't even on the first page of results for a "search engine" Google search. Of course they aren't on the first page; they are the first page!
Now if you search for Google on Google, they are the first result (and the first sponsored link).
you certainly don't want title tags anywhere but in your <head> element. I certainly don't want title tags in my <head> element... 'cause only one is permitted (and it's required).
Those that can own copyrights can still license those rights to others to do their publication. The GP was saying that transfer of those copyrights away from the author permanently to another are what is unconstitutional.
Similarly, with such a strict interpretation, a licensee of a copyright cannot sue for infringement. Only the actual author could do that. But he can still enlist the aid of an association to aid in his defense of his copyrights.
Further, due to the limitation of only the author being able to bring suit, it sets an upper limit to the "limited times", restricting it to the author's lifetime.
In the case of multiple authorship, and especially co-corporate authorship (employee creates work at the behest of his employer, allowing the corporation to become an author) the lifetime of the most mortal author should be the deciding factor for duration (the employee(s)), and no immortal entity should be a sole author with copyright protection.
Copyright holders can choose what they want done with their videos: whether to block, promote, or even--if a copyright holder chooses to partner with us--create revenue from them, with minimal friction. YouTube Video ID will help carry out that choice. Because I'm certain Google realizes that a lot of these copyright holders are sittin' on a freaking gold mine here. YouTube is a genie out of the bottle, and the corporations hoarding copyrighted material are... Daffy Duck:
"Oh, I know what you want! You're after my treasure! Well it's mine, ya understand?! Mine! All mine! Get back in there! Down, down, down! Go, go, go! Mine, mine, mine!"
What did they think the game was about? Baking cookies with Jesus? Maybe they misinterpreted the name. They probably thought it was about the Holy Trinity, what with the "3" in the title.
I hear the next game they're going to play is one they've only heard about, something called "Pray". The next week will, be "God: Father".
People don't want to pay for a regular real life simulator, because what then would be the point? I don't understand the appeal of The Sims either, except for the fun of walling a Sim into a room alone just to watch it die.
Most of the latter games in the Tycoon series also seem to have limited appeal, but they tend to get rated accordingly.
When was the last time you went to buy a book at a bookstore and it said "this has mature content and violence and sex and drugs" and they wouldn't sell it to you if you weren't 17 or older? Have you read the novelization of the movie WarGames as published by the Science Fiction Book Club? They took out all the drug references and in one place replaced it with lines that said Jennifer got good grades in school.
But a bit where David is reading a shoplifted book (by same author, natch) was left in.
The intact version has a green title. The edited version has a red title. (My copies have been misplaced. Both were purchased from a used book store.)
Compare to Viva Piñata which is rated E where part of the game is beating crying piñatas to death, their final release from life at the final death blow also releasing their candy and confetti insides to the delighted cheering of children.
"It looks like you're writing a letter. Would you like help?" My God! Do you know what this means? It means... that this damn thing doesn't work at all!
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, that assumes the party issuing the takedown notice knew to cite the offending articles by Message-ID. The canceled messages will not re-propagate to the server. The poster, anywhere else in the world, could still repost under a new Message-ID (automatically generated for every posting). The cancel messages can even contain the takedown notice in each message body, which would be readable in the newsgroup named "control" and/or in "control.cancel" if it is present.
They wouldn't necessarily even have to cryptographically sign the cancels since they are local, though it might be wise to prevent fellow users of the same server wildly canceling other articles.
These organizations could technically send out their own cancel messages with unrestricted distribution, though I'm not familiar with the current state of the art in preventing forged cancels. If spammers have truly lost interest in Usenet, it may have come to the point where cancel messages are generally ignored.
And that's another distinction for Usenet vs. P2P: on Usenet, people actually upload; on P2P nobody uploads (serving a downloader is not uploading). Also, most providers have "anonymous" posting, especially the kind of provider that advertises high retention of binary groups. So although you can find out what server or provider the uploader is using, you'd need to subpoena the operator's records to get an IP address. Subpoena? What country do you think this is? We just data-tap the backbone for National Security here, capture every packet and mine it later.
Anyway, an enforcement body could subscribe to multiple news services, identify a piece of illegal content on one server, get its unique Message-ID (must be globally unique to propagate), request the Path header of the same article on all the other servers to find all the servers that trafficked in that content, and file a subpoena to record the net traffic in and out of those servers for a week. Mine the recorded data for downloads of that message, for who downloaded them, serve a few ISPs with identity requests, and start your raids and arrests.
Usenet is a protocol.
No, NNTP is a protocol. Usenet is a system built upon that protocol (and UUCP, and other transport methods; see the wiki page), with messages composed under RFC 1036. Much like the WWW is built atop the HTTP protocol and its related RFCs.
Say, did the usefor group ever produce a new RFC besides "Son of RFC 1036"? I should have something to show for all the e-mail spam I now have to filter from participating in that mailing list.
RIAA will sue itself for providing the music to pirate.
Not before suing the estate of Thomas Alva Edison for his US Patent 200,521 having the sole purpose of creating unauthorized re-performances of copyrighted works by vibrating air molecules. And they'll make the charges stick by alleging it to be a continuous conspiracy of perpetuating such devices from invented form to modern technology.
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.
Abe: No! The burlesque house. So just keep your mouth shut.
Also there appears to be no mention of support of HD-DVD or BluRay media. No mention of them under enhancements for DVD Player and I can't find any mention of UDF 2.5 file system support.
Dot: Well, we know physical force can't hurt nulls. We'll have to try containment.
Phong: Do not worry. I have prepared something for just such an emergency.
Bob: You're prepared for a giant monster made entirely of nulls stomping around Mainframe?
Phong: That is correct!
Bob: How do you plan for that?
Phong: Ah, lucky guess?
I particularly liked how after all the redesign, if you tried to search for anything from the result you got a 404.
Now if you search for Google on Google, they are the first result (and the first sponsored link).
...and of course I left off the semicolon on my < entity. There's probably a nitpicker's law about that.
Those that can own copyrights can still license those rights to others to do their publication. The GP was saying that transfer of those copyrights away from the author permanently to another are what is unconstitutional.
Similarly, with such a strict interpretation, a licensee of a copyright cannot sue for infringement. Only the actual author could do that. But he can still enlist the aid of an association to aid in his defense of his copyrights.
Further, due to the limitation of only the author being able to bring suit, it sets an upper limit to the "limited times", restricting it to the author's lifetime.
In the case of multiple authorship, and especially co-corporate authorship (employee creates work at the behest of his employer, allowing the corporation to become an author) the lifetime of the most mortal author should be the deciding factor for duration (the employee(s)), and no immortal entity should be a sole author with copyright protection.
IANAL
Looks like the rumors were true: G3 support has been dropped. Also my G4 Cube no longer makes the cut.
I guess I won't be buying the 5-seat license version after all.
"Oh, I know what you want! You're after my treasure! Well it's mine, ya understand?! Mine! All mine! Get back in there! Down, down, down! Go, go, go! Mine, mine, mine!"
I hear the next game they're going to play is one they've only heard about, something called "Pray". The next week will, be "God: Father".
Most of the latter games in the Tycoon series also seem to have limited appeal, but they tend to get rated accordingly.
But a bit where David is reading a shoplifted book (by same author, natch) was left in.
The intact version has a green title. The edited version has a red title. (My copies have been misplaced. Both were purchased from a used book store.)
Compare to Viva Piñata which is rated E where part of the game is beating crying piñatas to death, their final release from life at the final death blow also releasing their candy and confetti insides to the delighted cheering of children.