Entertainment Industry Gets Another Usenet Provider To Shut Down: Is Usenet Illegal?
from the the-state-of-the-internet dept
I first got online in the days before the web existed, and spent much of my time on Usenet, that group of message boards that was useful for discussions of all types. While obviously much of those conversations moved to the web or email over the years, it’s still pretty ridiculous to see the entertainment industry continue to attack Usenet and basically act as if all of Usenet is illegal. As we noted a little over a month ago, a court in the Netherlands sided with anti-piracy group BREIN, and ordered Usenet provider News-Service (NSE) to wave a magic wand and somehow figure out which Usenet posts were infringing and which weren’t. Not surprisingly, that’s impossible, and NSE has announced that it’s just shutting down entirely instead. NSE was the largest Usenet provider in Europe. And now it’s dead. Because the entertainment industry refuses to adapt, and thus blames the technology for how the technology is used, a useful (legal) service is gone. For what it’s worth, NSE will continue to appeal the court’s ruling… but only on principle. As an operating effort, it appears NSE is dead. Another one killed by the entertainment industry.
Filed Under: censorship, copyright, europe, free speech, usenet
Companies: brein, news-service
Comments on “Entertainment Industry Gets Another Usenet Provider To Shut Down: Is Usenet Illegal?”
…sniff… I’ll drink a tot of rum to me old matey at the tide
:_(
I don’t think they are going to win public support by attacking the public.
(Which is the entirety of several dozen posts on techdirt in a nutshell)
Re: Re:
Too bad the public have nothing to say in the matter. 🙁
Re: Re: Re:
Too bad you took advantage of good thing and got it taken down.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Therein lies the rub, you incorrectly view the offending activities as “taking advantage” when, in fact, those users most likely spend more on the media than other people do.
As long as the content industries continue to view their biggest fans as criminals, they’re doomed to fail.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Bullshit.
People spend more on media? Funny, not just revenue, but items sold dropped precipitously after music piracy.
You people need to just stop lying about this. You’re not fooling anyone.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So in an age where you can buy individual tracks and not just whole albums, items sold has dropped?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“For the first time in the digital era, overall music unit sales — which count each sale of an album, digital track and music video as one unit — fell 2.4% to 1.51 billion units from the 1.55 billion units in 2009.”
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/retail/u-s-album-sales-dropped-12-8-last-year-digital-1004137880.story
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Who’s lying? There’s plenty of economic evidence proving the claim.
Hadopi
Music
e-Books
Media in general
You might want to study up before trying to talk down others with false threats of force.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Jay, once again… you need to learn that opinion + opinion does not equal fact.
First link goes to a site that quotes the wonderful duo of Torrent Freak and Mike Masnick. Gee, I wonder what side of the discussion these guys are on?
Neither of them want to address the question of how much music these people would buy if piracy was not an option. They won’t want to consider that somehow, recorded music sales have dropped in half, about at the same speed piracy has increased. They would rather focus on a single tree in a forest, and try to make it look like everything is okay. Go look at the overall sales numbers, how do you explain a 50% drop?
Second link is to Torrent Freak itself. FAIL. Ditto the third.
Fourth? Same place as the first, and all I can see on the page is the names of Masnick, Geist, and even Glyn Moody. Another massive FAIL.
Opinion + opinion != Fact. Learn it and work with it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Yes, because I can now pick the good songs off an album at 1.29 each rather than being conned into buying the entire CD at $16.99 is also not a contributing factor. Piracy is not the only factor that led to a 50% decline. Your logic is skewed.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
You are right, it isn’t the only factor, but it is clearly a big contributor. Remember too, even in “unit sales”, the digital sales of singles are nowhere near the sales of albums 10 years ago. Why do you think that is?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Because the content providers (musicians) are learning that they don’t NEED the recording industry, so the RECORDING INDUSTRY has less content to sell. are you really that dense??
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Nope; “more music is being made now than ever”.
Remember?
You’re not fooling anybody.
Do you honestly believe you are? Then go see a mental health professional.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Yes, and people are beginning to flock to sites, such as Jamendo, where the artists have more control.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Part of that is due to people’s perception that the price is too high. $1.29 for an infinitely replicated file is highway robbery when you look at the costs of delivery compared to physical medium. That CD may have cost me $16.99 but at least I knew that part of that was the cost of producing physical media and it’s transportation. Now, despite the fact that their digital distribution is astronomically cheaper, the industry still insists on charging the same price. What happened to passing on the savings to the consumer? Pure greed, pocket the difference. Now of course we all know that the cost of digital delivery has suddenly skyrocketed thanks to UMG’s play on words but up until that point, they were clearly taking advantage of the consumer. People aren’t stupid, most of them see that. You see, when you have spent decades cultivating an out-of-touch, greedy, thieving image for your industry, people will not feel sorry for you. They brought this upon themselves and no one will show up at their funeral.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Part of that is due to people’s perception that the price is too high. $1.29 for an infinitely replicated file is highway robbery when you look at the costs of delivery compared to physical medium.
Then don’t fucking buy it. Your impression of price fairness doesn’t justify taking it for nothing.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
“Then don’t fucking buy it. Your impression of price fairness doesn’t justify taking it for nothing.”
He didn’t say anything about taking it for nothing. Stop making assumptions. Just because people say “the price is too high” DOES NOT mean they are taking something for nothing or supporting people that do that or anything.
In fact, looking at his ENTIRE comment, I cannot see a single mention of downloading a single thing or anything of the sort. What I do see however, is that he points out that despite costs going down (as far as for producing the final product, that’d be the single mp3) prices have stayed the same (if not gone higher). As such, the content producers are being greedy. Now that their greed has caught up with them, they can’t expect people to feel sorry for them.
Try and read what people ACTUALLY write and respond to that. And ONLY that. Not what you imagine they wrote or what you wish they wrote. It kind of makes you look bad when you do otherwise, also, you come off as pretty hardcore when you say what you did. You can’t just say “then don’t buy it”? You don’t have to throw the “f*cking” in there. Also, nothing is “taken” in the strictest sense of the word. A copy is made. Thus nothing has been lost. Or better said, “taken”.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
One day, you will stop being a drooling retard and accept that objection to the RIAA’s methods and pricing does not equal support of nor participation in piracy. On that day, you will be able to take part in an adult, mature conversation and actually get somewhere.
One day…
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
That’s just it. If I think that the price is too high (which I do) and I decide not to buy, what happens? Total number of sales goes down. What happens when total number of sales goes down? You and the industry claim piracy and make everything worse.
So my options are to buy music, and give my money to thieves and rights-tramplers. Or, not buy, and have the same results happen, just with other people’s money.
I wonder why people would want to opt out of the system entirely..
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
And how does that help you at all? Maybe you should consider some new price points.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Fewer works to sell because copyright has expired?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Why do you think that is?
– people have much more media competing for attention and money
– people have less money available
– people finally see that the industry has kept (CD) prices artificially high by forming cartels
– there’s an ongoing recession
– people aren’t forced to by entire albuns (all filler no killer) anymore
etc.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
They won’t want to consider that somehow, recorded music sales have dropped in half, about at the same speed piracy has increased.
Actually, he’s dealt with that along with Bas. More artists are making money with only the recorded labels showing a decrease in music. I would venture that more artists are using free services as well as Kickstarter for projects and keeping those profits. I don’t know why you choose to remain ignorant on your part, but that’s up to you. From the sounds of it, it looks as if you dismiss anything you don’t agree with.
So there’s no more point in talking. If anyone wants to see the information, it’s a link to an article showing how the best HADOPI customers were the biggest pirates.
How Music pirates were the RIAA’s best customers
E-books and manga profited from piracy.
Joe Karaganis’ 3 year report debunking the AC’s line of reasoning.
Well, there’s no more reason to talk to someone who wants to stay ignorant. There’s more facts in the links up above. The AC has failed to engage in a debate, relying solely on rhetoric and ad homs. Sad.
Facts have been presented. Learn it and live with it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Jay, you keep falling for the simple stuff. I feel sorry for you.
One of the biggest mistakes anyone can make is assuming that an increase is “artist gross” is actually an increase in artist net.
If the artist has significantly more expenses, say because they are now managing their own tour, paying their own expenses for it, you may in fact see that artist net isn’t as good as it was before.
The UK numbers from a couple of years back showed the most important thing: Net money in the business (except for licensing) was flat… the money consumers were spending didn’t change. In a 10 year period, with inflation (both on retail and wage inflation), that is a significant loss.
” there’s no more reason to talk to someone who wants to stay ignorant.” – so you stopped talking to yourself?
See, I have a real problem when everything points to opinion pieces linked to weak numbers, selective representations, or just fanciful fabrications. There is a lack of reconcilliation between the facts that the music business as a whole (live, recorded, online sales, merch… the whole ball of wax including your Kickstarter types) hasn’t grown much in dollar levels, but the number of “acts” has increased dramatically. Mike keeps trying to say that the artists are making more money, but basic math says this isn’t really possible. More people sharing the same pie means skinnier slices for everyone.
Moreover, we continue to have the “rich get richer” theory at work, where major acts are accounting for larger and larger amounts of the pie, leaving the small fry with even less money to deal with.
As for linking to Bas… honestly, I don’t take someone’s thesis as much of vote one way or another. A friend of mine did a thesis a couple of years ago about how slavery was good for the economy of the new world, and suggested that slavery today would also be effective. I don’t buy it for a second, but it made for an amusing thesis.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
There isn’t a single shred of evidence of Masnick’s claim that musicians are making more money now than ever.
Anyone that reads this blog knows Masnick is a huge proponent of “the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it” tact.
It’s always been his MO, but he now appears to rely upon it on a daily basis.
This is but one reason it can’t really surprise anyone when his recent behavior is described as appearing desperate.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
There isn’t a single shred of evidence of Masnick’s claim that musicians are making more money now than ever.
Other than, you know, the industry’s own numbers. But folks like you will never actually look at the data.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091114/1835036932.shtml
I await, patiently, your admission that I not only have more than “a shred” of evidence, I have a ton of evidence and you have no clue.
This is but one reason it can’t really surprise anyone when his recent behavior is described as appearing desperate.
Desperation is wishing to overturn the law of the land because you’re unwilling to adapt.
Once again: I offer to you my services free of charge. You’ve admitted that you’re a failure in the music business, because you don’t want to adapt. I’ll help you adapt. Just give us a call.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
One of the biggest mistakes anyone can make is assuming that an increase is “artist gross” is actually an increase in artist net.
And one of the constant mistakes is how you make this stubborn complaint that growing the market means somehow the individual artist has lost something in compensation. They have not. All of the markets have indeed grown due to the abundance of digital files.
so you stopped talking to yourself?
Cute, but when all you constantly complain about is how on an opinion blog- uses objective analysis to bring up their conclusions, then it makes it harder to take you seriously.
More people sharing the same pie means skinnier slices for everyone.
The pie has gotten bigger so it’s not the same pie at all.
A smaller slice could be worth more. One-third of Five and one third of 100 are not the same thing.
Moreover, we continue to have the “rich get richer” theory at work, where major acts are accounting for larger and larger amounts of the pie, leaving the small fry with even less money to deal with.
You seem to be conflating a few things here and you need to clarify. Are you talking about concerts? More live shows? More touring? How are major acts taking away from the other, smaller projects that are occurring such as streaming live on Justin.tv? I don’t see how the “rich have gotten richer” when U2 touring has nothing to do with Imogen Heap’s ways of twittering fans and making shows.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
The problem is the recording industry, as has been pointed out many, many times, is trying to control the market with artificial scarcity. It never works, markets always move towards efficiency. If your customers want the music you have to offer, but aren’t willing to pay artificially high prices for it anymore, don’t vilify them. Find another way to generate income from it. There are plenty of examples of companies trying to do that. The winners in any industry offer a product customers want at a price they are willing to pay. When you try to add any complication to that equation, the results will always fail.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Strawman.
Desired art is by definition a natural scarcity.
You are talking about a loss of controlled distribution.
The problem for you is that the situation you avail yourself to happened via un-policed illegal behavior.
Not a sustainable scenario. Inevitable that it was going to change.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
No, 9:27 AC got it right. You’re trying to use law as a means of changing behavior. But I doubt that’ll work.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Learn it and work with it.
Why not lead by example? You claim that 50% drops in sales equals 50% rais in piracy. Now that’s an opinion and nothing else.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
They don’t waste time with the hypothetical and the impossible. In what world will piracy not be an option? In the world envisioned by the *AAs and presaged by the PROTECT IP and SOPA proposals. In a world where the Internet is essentially shut down and all potential pirates are in jail.
Now… tell me how much music they will be buying at that point?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
People spend more on media? Funny, not just revenue, but items sold dropped precipitously after music piracy.
Weren’t people paying for Usenet accounts? Wasn’t that money going into the economy?
Oh, I see, the entertainment companies are the only ones who matter. I guess if they’re not making money, then people might as well be burning their money, right? After all, if they’re not giving it to the entertainment industry, nobody cares…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
According to that logic they should shut down banks, given that they get robbed on occasion, and blame the robbers for people not being able to use the banks. Or in other words; a just society doesn’t punish people for what others do.
This makes about as much sense as shutting down the interstate highway system because the interstates are used to transport illegal drugs and undocumented workers. There would be a lot of collateral damage, and in the end there would be just as much transport of illegal drugs and workers; they would just move to other modes of transport.
Re: Re:
“This makes about as much sense as shutting down the interstate highway system because the interstates are used to transport illegal drugs and undocumented workers.”
No, it would be like shutting down a shipping company that was found to be transporting stolen cars repeatedly.
Highway system = inter-connectivity (fiber/wires/etc..)
shipping company = service provider (YouTube/Facebook/NSE)
Re: Re: Re:
No, it would be like shutting down a car rental company because it allows you to rent vehicles that allow you to drive to places where cars are being copied.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless the car rental company was renting stolen vehicles your analogy is flawed. Do you understand the difference between a service provided on a server and the IP traffic to/from that server?
Do you understand how Usenet works? The pirated content was actually being stored on their servers, in Base64 encoded chunks. The chunks are downloaded directly from their servers and reassembled by the pirate.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Do you understand how Usenet works? The pirated content was actually being stored on their servers, in Base64 encoded chunks. The chunks are downloaded directly from their servers and reassembled by the pirate.
Do YOU understand how the highway works. The stolen vehicles drive ON the highway.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Do *you* understand how Usenet works?
Those servers just copy the content from other servers regardless of content.
It’s like shutting down every SMTP server that receives an email that has infringing content – IOW… potentially every SMTP server… email is no longer possible, it might contain infringing content.
Yay for freedom of communication!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Understanding how the Usenet works is important, but stepping back and seeing the results of the Usenet are also important.
Have a look:
http://usenetstats.com/top100bytes.php
In that top 100, I can see easily 50 groups that would be packed with illegal content. Looking at the content of alt.binaries.dvd, it’s clear that they are all DVD rips. How hard is it to see?
This is where the old “innocent host” thing becomes a problem. They propagate the content, they share it, and in the case of companies that charge to access it, they are profiting from it. They only have to look at the single largest group to know that their servers are packed full of stolen content. Why should they get a pass for turning a blind eye?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
What I find amazing is how you criticize demand for a product but you’ve no actual data on which place wants what. Example: China doesn’t have Hulu or Netflix, yet they might be interested in Dr. Who or old Babylon 5 episodes. And judging from Tor results, they’re also interested in porn (the lack of women thing is really hurting them ya know…).
It’s as if you think that the MPAA or the RIAA should control their product for others instead of finding ways to profit.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Jay, I don’t criticize demand… I criticize people who can’t take NO for an answer. Spoiled children behave better.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Which has what to do with actually answering my analysis?
I didn’t sit here and criticize someone’s behavior. I was talking about how the trade industries could find ways to profit from piracy by removing artificial scarcities.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
It’s really not that hard to understand. The fact you are saying “I criticize people who can’t take NO for an answer. Spoiled children behave better.” Shows you don’t see the point. There is an under-served market, if the current content creation industries can’t see that simple fact (and block any company who does), they will go out of business like so many companies before them. Other companies will fill their place like so many other companies have before. The mantra of capitalism is and always will be “Adapt or die”.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“I criticize people who can’t take NO for an answer.”
The problem is, that’s not the only thing you do. You repeatedly defend those who are saying “no you can’t buy this”, then turn round and complain that they’re losing money by people not buying it. You can’t have it both ways.
You would have some kind of point if the market was being correctly served and there was still piracy (which there will be, as there always has been). Many here would agree with you at that point. But, to defend those who are making massive mistakes, and to then attack those who point the mistakes out? Not helping.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No, you are claiming the service provider was doing something wrong when the user did it so the right analogy is that the rented car was used to commit a crime and the rental car shop was closed for it.
That is not liability being applied right, not by a long shot.
Usenet isn’t illegal per se, just like YouTube as a technology isn’t infringing on anything (unless someone is after them for their code… different problem).
However, Usenet has significant use as a conduit for piracy, which makes it a real issue. It has been a problem pretty much since the start of “commercial internet time”, and many of the aggregating and filter sites have only served to make it even more obvious.
It’s the sort of thing that “made” the internet what it is, but like any generally illicit activity, it cannot go on forever.
Re: Re:
The internet has “significant use as a conduit for piracy”. It can not go on forever. This is a real issue.
So let’s shut down the internet. I am sure it will boost sales.
Re: Re: Re:
Nope, and actually, this is one of those cases where you missed the point, but made another one that is almost as good.
First, let me say this: I chose my words poorly in using “”significant use as a conduit for piracy”, because you guys are busy focusing on the words and not the meaning. I suspect it’s intentional to avoid dealing with the real issues, but hey…
The internet is content neutral. A network of connections is nothing. It’s what you do with it that matters. It doesn’t impart anything by itself. The internet, ISPs that provide connectivity to it… they are SERVICE PROVIDERS, in the same manner that your phone company is a service provider for your cell phone or home phone service.
Usenet is pretty clearly filled with pirated content. I have already shown the links, where the largest groups by size are packed with pirated stuff. It’s not hard. Any company selling access to Usenet, storing the content, etc can easily and clearly know what they are doing. In fact, many Usenet services organize, filter, and make it easier for you to collect the various pieces of the bin files to get your pirated content more quickly. Think Newzbin. They aren’t neutral service providers, they are companies that are active in the distribution of content that they can clearly tell is pirated, only needing a cursory look. The sheer volume of pirate content stored on News Service is insane.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And as you point out, people are willing to pay these Usenet providers to access said content. Perhaps if the content industry embraced their model, they too could make money like Usenet service providers do. They are more worried about keeping their content under lock and key than providing a cheap alternative to piracy. No matter how you spin it, you can’t deny that their failure to monetize their own content is a failure on their part. Something that can be replicated infinitely should be available everywhere cheap. But they aren’t interested in that. It’s largely a problem of your own making.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Any company selling access to Usenet, storing the content, etc can easily and clearly know what they are doing.
Except for the files that have bogus names and/or are encrypted? And because they should hire someone to sift through 18 TB of traffic every day?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, because even though the big copyright giants can’t distinguish infringing material from non-infringing, clearly it is trivial for usenet providers.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Usenet is pretty clearly filled with pirated content. I have already shown the links, where the largest groups by size are packed with pirated stuff. It’s not hard. Any company selling access to Usenet, storing the content, etc can easily and clearly know what they are doing. In fact, many Usenet services organize, filter, and make it easier for you to collect the various pieces of the bin files to get your pirated content more quickly. Think Newzbin. They aren’t neutral service providers, they are companies that are active in the distribution of content that they can clearly tell is pirated, only needing a cursory look. The sheer volume of pirate content stored on News Service is insane.
Let’s look at this from another perspective…
In order to operate their businesses, Usenet providers need to make large investments in hardware to store and serve all the content as well as providing backups in case of problems. They also need to pay for the bandwidth that they use, which must be huge, and I’ll bet that their electric bills would probably match the costs of an entire street. They then charge people for access. Money changes hands and quite a bit of money goes into the economy because of this. It’s just not going to to the Entertainment companies.
Now what happens if they get rid of all the large binary groups like you suggest. Without those to attract customers, they can no longer entice people to buy monthly accounts with large or unlimited download accounts. Even with the decrease in storage costs, their income would no longer make it profitable for them to operate and they’d shut down. Since virtually no ISP still runs their own news server anymore, Usenet would effectively be dead, limited only to colleges and a select few organizations.
One of the oldest parts of the net would be killed off because the entertainment industry feels they aren’t getting as much money as they’re entitled to. And would this make people buy more media? Pretty unlikely given that such a move would only help fuel the hatred that people already have for the copyright industry.
Re: Re:
Radio isn’t illegal per se, just like Television as a technology isn’t infringing on anything (unless someone is after them for their frequencies… different problem).
However, Radio has significant use as a conduit for piracy, which makes it a real issue. It has been a problem pretty much since the start of “commercial airwave time”, and many of the aggregating and filter books have only served to make it even more obvious.
It’s the sort of thing that “made” the airwaves what it is, but like any generally illicit activity, it cannot go on forever.
Re: Re: Re:
Do you realize that legitimate radio stations are licensed rights to play the music?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So? Just because a store is licensed to sell CDs of music, doesn’t mean they can burn them to mp3 and copy it to all their friends for free, right?
Radio allows people to record the music, therefore it is a significant conduit of piracy. Radio must be destroyed, and any radio station that doesn’t “purge any illicit tape recorder” must be closed down.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I’m surprised that there isn’t more DRM attached to these radio waves.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
All radio is DRM.
Doesn’t Really Matter.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Radio pays for every single play.
It’s never been legal for someone to copy something off the radio and distribute it on a mass level.
The radio analogy is straight-up retarded.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do realize that radio stations used to get paid to play that same music and now the music industry is trying to charge them for promoting their work for them?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
???
It would be nice if some of you zealots could cite an actual news source once in a while, rather just link back to some previous insane post by Masnick.
You know shit has gone way off the cliff when Torrent Freak seems more reasonable than this place…
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
It’s called ‘payola.’ Look it up. It’s a rather well-known and significant historical fact. Jesus fuck, are you people just willfully ignorant??
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
” Jesus fuck, are you people just willfully ignorant??”
Yes. Yes, they are…
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
It would be nice if some of you zealots could cite an actual news source once in a while, rather just link back to some previous insane post by Masnick.
Here you go
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wonder why do they even need a “valid license”, do people need a “valid license from Ford” to operate their cars?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He didn’t say the radio stations are the pirates, he said they were conduits. Pay attention. Do you realize that people record the music that is being played by those radio stations? I played that copy of Year of the Cat for months before I bought the album and, later, the CD. Every time I played it I stole thousands of dollars from Al Stewart. Because of me he starved to death in the early 1980s. Because of freetard pirates like me the music industry was completely dead by the 1990s. There is no more music.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep, and legitimate usenet groups have every right to transmit the data they transmit as well.
Are you suggesting that because pirate radio stations exist, then radio should be shut down? If not, your position on usenet seems rather contradictory.
Re: Usenet
> It’s the sort of thing that “made” the internet
> what it is, but like any generally illicit
> activity, it cannot go on forever.
There are 50,000+ newsgroups on Usenet, the overwhelming majority of which are nothing but text-based discussion of everything from politics to basket-weaving and have absolutely nothing to do with infringement.
To block all of Usenet because of a few infringing groups/users is essentially the equivalent of blocking the entire world wide web because of a few infringing web sites.
Re: Re: Usenet
Actually a lot of ISP’s used to offer stripped down versions of Usenet access, that is to say, Verizon’s lacking the alt.binaries.* groups. Comcast used to offer such a stripped-down service. So yes, it would be easy to filter the alt.binaries groups but then no one would pay these companies to access Usenet. Not to mention that the companies’ storage infrastructure, designed to store 1095 days of binaries would be completely useless as you could probably fit the other 48,000 groups content on a flash drive.
Re: Re: Re: Usenet
Verizon’s = versions…stupid auto-correct!
Re: Re: Re: Usenet
That’s part of the problem, and what brings it into focus:
Without the binaries, few people will pay for it. Why? Because they want what is in the binaries… porn, warez, and pirated movies.
It’s the fact that many here on Techdirt try to ignore.
Re: Re: Re:2 Usenet
Many people here ignore that people want porn?
You’re insane.
Re: Re: Re:2 Usenet
Why?
Because you say so. It must be true then.
Re: Re: Re:2 Usenet
If people are so worried about losing all the free speech that comes with usenet, just stop files larger than a certain size, which are obviously being used for something other than “free speech”.
How many bits did my free speech just consume posting this?
Re: Re: Re:2 Usenet
“Without the binaries, few people will pay for it. Why? Because they want what is in the binaries… porn, warez, and pirated movies.”
Then, the problem is the demand is unserviced – that people want it, and are willing to pay for it but have no reasonable legal method to do so. Do you honestly think that people would pay for usenet access for these materials if a legal channel was available?
Of course, that also assumes that binary groups only contain infringing material, which is far from the truth – a fact that you idiot trolls try to ignore.
Re: Re: Usenet
It seems that it was earlier this year that some numbnuts politician or other wanted to shut down usenet because it was the home of all child pornographers.
Can hollywood, the record industry, and politicians ALL be wrong?
BTW: I vote YES!
Re: Re:
Hard disks has a significant use as a conduit for piracy. Let’s ban all of sneakernet. Everybody, you’re forbidden to interact with one and other.
Re: Re: Re:
Mass piracy has been the target of the RIAA and the MPAA, while I am sure they would love to end all piracy, they are primarily targeting services which allow millions of people to pirate simultaneously.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why bother? It won’t make them an extra cent of profit. The only people making money from this are the lawyers.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
That’s a pretty funny statement, considering all the freetards on this site talk like lawyers when they toss out their silly semantical rationalizations for ripping off what they want to consume but not pay for.
And yes, hindering piracy will lead to more sales. Welcome to Human Nature and Economics 101.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No it won’t, as I won’t be buying any of their crap, anymore.
Besides which, people only have so much money to spend, most of it will go to food, entertainment goes at the bottom. And since we are in an economic downpour, with the highest levels of unemployment in ages, I don’t think that buying a dvd is high on the list of things to do.
Hunting down ‘pirates’, is shooting at your fans. Shooting at your fans hurts your bottom-line, as it turns your fans into your worst enemies.
Welcome to Human Nature indeed.
Only in the deranged imaginations of the executives does suing ‘damn dirty pirates’ lead to more money.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
LOL
If you only got your content from Jamendo or whatever, you wouldn’t have anything to worry about then, would you?. LOL
But we all know you sit at home all week consuming content made by those with the most desired talent and those with real financial backing.
So you’re not fooling anyone. Not now, and not ever before.
It’s over. Seriously, give it up and get a life.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
It’s funny how you assume so much about me.
I wonder, don’t you see the problems with these laws, or don’t you WANT to see those problems?
In other words, is it willfull ignorance, or just basic stupidity.
These laws will have so many unintended consequences, that the damages that these laws will have, cannot be overseen.
Don’t come crying to us, when your method of choice for distributing your content suddenly becomes as illegal as the pirate bay is deemed to be.
For proof of that, just look at the list of “rogue websites” put out there by the RIAA.
In the mean time, you have no right to assume 1 bit about me. Is that understood, Coward?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“But we all know you sit at home all week consuming content made by those with the most desired talent and those with real financial backing.”
I love the fact that you base every assertion on idiotic assumptions with no basis in reality. Just an assumption that because you can’t live without the content produced by the corporations you worship, nobody else can either. Rather pathetic.
Oh yeah, and I also love the fact that you can’t accept that legal outlets exist without having to pay either. Radio, TV, free papers, libraries… it’s perfectly possible to consume content even from your corporate gods without paying one cent.
“Seriously, give it up and get a life.”
If only you would.
Re: Re: Re:
“Hard disks has a significant use as a conduit for piracy. Let’s ban all of sneakernet. Everybody, you’re forbidden to interact with one and other.”
Whenever I read stuff like this, I have to laugh.
Inanimate objects don’t do anything. They aren’t a conduit for anything. It is how they are USED that counts.
When it comes to services, things aren’t that clear. I suspect that News Service looked at dropping the binary groups (which most of the offending material would pass), and perhaps to put a limit on file size or something to limit it further, but I think they figured out that most people wouldn’t pay them for access to only the legal stuff.
See, hard drives can’t choose what they do, people do that. Service providers can choose what they do or do not do.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you are saying that anybody can police a service that have thousands of posts everyday?
Google can’t do it, Microsoft can’t do it, Warner can’t do it, the government can’t do it, what makes you think usenet administrators would be capable of doing it?
You do understand that people can post binaries anywhere they can post text right? or photos or PDF’s.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Google can’t do it, Microsoft can’t do it, Warner can’t do it,”
Citations needed for each case.
For Usenet, they could have resolved almost all of the issues by no longer carrying the binaries. They chose not to. You don’t have to be a genius to cut out almost all of the piracy on usenet.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
They chose not to.
Simply because despite claims there is also a lot of binary legal content. And why should they do the rightsholders job and start sifting through it to find infringing material?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“they could have resolved almost all of the issues by no longer carrying the binaries”
…thereby cutting off a legal distribution channel for freeware, open source, public domain and other legal content.
But, you don’t care about that as long as your masters get paid, right?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whenever I read stuff like this, I have to laugh.
Inanimate businessmen don’t do anything. They aren’t a conduit for anything. It is how they are USED that counts.
When it comes to the internet, things aren’t that clear. I suspect that News Service looked at pumping up the binary groups (which most of the awesome material would pass), and perhaps to add a super secret prize on file size or something to pump it up it further, but I think they figured out that most people would pay them a shitload of money for access to the legal stuff.
See, businessmen can’t choose what they do, normal sane people do that. Everyone else can choose what they do or do not do.
FIFY – long live inanimate objects!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Service providers can choose what they do or do not do.
Right. Any the choose not to be the private police force of some legacy players. Unlike ICE.
Re: Re:
Fun fact:
Back in the day, They Might be Giants used to connect with fans through Usenet.
Re: Re:
We should shutdown big labels then they are all criminals.
We also should shutdown all studios since we all know they are all drug addicts that skip taxes and are outside the law.
Re: Re:
Roads are not illegal per se, however they are a significant conduit for counterfeit goods since 100% of the counterfeit goods go through some road at some point.
Let’s shut down those pesky roads!
Mike stop blaming the piracy on adaption, people would pirate even if the entertainment industry allowed you to download a QuadHD version of a movie with no DRM for ten cents.
The real issue is that the Usenet hosting service refused to adapt and purge the pirated content from their threads. I too once used UseNet as a technical discussion forum, but it’s an antiquated system, which has become a pirating playground.
There are legitimate reasons for many things which have been outlawed because of nefarious uses, I could list many examples of things that have been outlawed because of illegal activities and the failure to self-police those actions.
Re: Re:
Yes, much like the Email company refuses to purge the internets from any “infringing threads” that people have in their inboxes.
Re: Re: Re:
Except the infringing threads aren’t being served up to millions of users simultaneously.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except the infringing threads aren’t being served up to millions of users simultaneously.
So they have no useful function as a promotional tool – and are thus more likely to have a net negative effect on sales.
Way to go entertainment industry. Preferentially target the things that might actually help you – whilst leaving untouched the things that are more likely to be a net loss.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What happened to “pirates” are just a fringe group that doesn’t count?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, your argument is that because a service is misused, it should be cut off. With usenet, your argument is that because infringing content exists, it should be cut off completely. Email is used for spam, some of which is directly harmful and it has been used on many occasions to facilitate fraud and other real crimes with actual damage and actual victims – unlike the assumed and invented claims of damage by your industry.
So, your argument really is that email should be destroyed because it has some improper usage. Unless your argument that proven, quantifiable losses by individuals are less important than unquantified, unproven losses by corporations. In which case, we have more proof of which side your bread is buttered, so to speak…
Re: Re:
people would pirate even if the entertainment industry allowed you to download a QuadHD version of a movie with no DRM for ten cents
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:
rubberpants, that won’t work…
Remember, these are the same people that want to criminalize streaming content for watching it once.
[dose of reality needed]
Re: Re:
If the entertainment industry let me download a movie in a format that can be played on any device with no limitations, most people would have no problem paying a couple of dollars, let alone 10 cents.
Water is literally free from one’s tap, yet people a dollar or more for bottle water.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes but water from the tap is controlled by a local government who is supposed to be conducting tests on said free water. There have been several instances where the government was lax in this testing only to have the water they were pumping contain carcinogens when it was tested. Do you trust your local government? I am not naive enough to trust mine, so I buy bottled water. The moral of the story is, when you make a crappy product, even if it’s free, there is always someone else that will make money off of your failure.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly that is why content producer will make no money from their “content” because others are supplying the masses with carcinogenic free alternatives.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Why yes, there was an analogy in there. Bravo! But you obviously missed the point. I’ll give you half credit.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Wow. You don’t understand your own analogy. That’s epic.
BTW, how’s the poisoned bottled water treating you?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course the social cancer is called IP law, which copyright is a part of it.
Re: Re:
You mean like Warner Bros. failing to pay struggling artists, yet giving lots of money to artists who are addicted to illegal drugs?
You mean like UMG, who consistently claimed that iTunes was a license to the music, right up until the point when they were sued for incorrect payment of royalties to artists?
Both of the above committed illegal activities, but only one of them is criminal. Can you guess which one?
Re: Re: Re:
Which struggling artist would that be? Chuck D? ahahahaha
Re: Re:
Did anybody outlaw LLC’s?
Most of the time it is used only for shady business practices.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, like venture capital investments that help start up new businesses…
Re: Re: Re:
And small businesses, and homeowner’s associations, and timeshare arrangements…
Re: Re:
Mike stop blaming the piracy on adaption
Then in the very next paragraph:
The real issue is that the Usenet hosting service refused to adapt
Wow!
Re: Re:
I too once used UseNet as a technical discussion forum, but it’s an antiquated system
Antiquated, my ass. Using 40tude Dialogue as a newsreader beats ANY forum software (this included) by a longshot in terms of convenience and features.
Re: Re:
I wouldn’t download a “quadHD” movie because for one thing the file would be BLOODY HUGE…and no screen/PC that could play it back smoothly anyway.
Re: Re:
Such as?…
the entertainment industries are not going to be content until there are no sites on the internet other than those that they control. this is and always has been the only thing that they are after. i just wonder what they will do after they have achieved this goal? who/what will they go after next? are they really so afraid of technology, the future, that they cant see, let alone admit, that the lengths to which they are going are, in the end, going to lead to their total downfall? well, i fucking well hope so!
I’d argue that Usenet is the primary distribution mechanism for most piracy actually. Most pirated files that you see on web sites, torrents, cyber lockers, etc. originate on Usenet. It’s the de facto release channel. Wile I lament the demise of Usenet, I always thought that these morons at MAFIAA were wasting their time taking out such down-level platforms like Grokster, Kazaa, etc. and not attacking the source. If you know anything about the “warez scene” at all, you know exactly what I am talking about.
Re: Re:
If you know anything about the “scene” you would know it doesn’t originate on Usenet at all dummy.
They have their own servers and it gets over to other places from there.
Now they have darknets.
Re: Re: Re:
Well duh. It gets to the masses via Usenet. I said Usenet is the de facto release channel. I said the down-level pirate clients get most of it off Usenet, hence for them, it originates on Usenet. Of course it really originates on scene servers, which are private. How do you think the unwashed masses get it, the people that are “affiliates” of cyber lockers making money off hits, the people uploading to share forums, those people? Do you really think those people get it directly from scene servers? Of course not, some may but most get it from the Usenet auto-posters that have access to a scene server. I didn’t think I would have to explain that. Noob.
Re: Re:
“If you know anything about the “warez scene” at all, you know exactly what I am talking about.”
LMAO! You obviously know very little about “the scene”. While “scene” and “p2p” releases alike are leaked onto usenet, “scene” releases are distributed simultaneously to global, secured “topsites” (private ftp servers), and then trickle down to various forums of distribution, one of which is usenet, but you could kill every usenet provider in the world and it won’t stop “scene” releases from getting distributed. No one in “the scene” releases ANYTHING to usenet….
email is killing the post office. shut it down
Re: Re:
email isn’t illegal.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m pretty sure it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)
Greed
The entertainment industry is interested in only one thing, and it ain’t the artists! It’s the money, first, last and always…the money. I don’t know any words to describe their level of greed but it knows no bounds, really!
Re: Greed
Oh if only it was.
It’s actions are actually damaging to its own future, that’s the really irksome part of their lobbying and wailing.
The movie guys objected to the vcr on the same kinds of grounds and it and its successors have massively increased their profits.
When they lose their battles, they win financially
unfortunately now they are winning their battles and will lose in the long run.
They are like children, challenging and battling their parents.
For their own good, the very last thing that should be allowed to happen is for them to get their way, that way lies misery for everyone.
This is just like how broadcast radio steals from the entertainment industry…
Do you realize that legitimate radio stations are licensed rights to play the music?
Indeed, but if it wasn’t for the ‘free’ music people can tune into – how much less content would they be able to sell?
How many music recordings have you bought without hearing for ‘free’ first? Many?
I have bought close to zero without hearing it first. Licensing aside – ‘Free’ radio has clearly driven more music sales than any other kind of advertising for sure – nothing else is even close.
Why? Because people can hear it first, for free.
This won't last, of course
Those of us who’ve been running Usenet sites for decades have anticipated this kind of vicious attack and have already deployed countermeasures. If the entertainment industry does not cease ALL attacks against ALL Usenet providers, we’ll deploy them.
And believe me, if they think Usenet’s an issue now, they’re going to have a real headache when we unleash this.
But we’re certainly not going to allow a mere few bullies who can’t adapt to tell us how to run the Internet.
Re: This won't last, of course
P2P usenet ftw!
Re: Re: This won't last, of course
P2P usenet ftw!
That was tried a few years ago and was highly unreliable.
Re: This won't last, of course
The entertainment industry is also forgetting something: that the Internet was designed primarily for military use for more real-time information passing.
Re: This won't last, of course
Please! Cry havoc and release the hogs of war! (Please don’t correct me if you don’t get the Archer reference)
Re: Re: This won't last, of course
Whatever farm animal of war, Lana. Shut up.
Archer. Lol. By far one of the most entertaining things on tv. (In my opinion of course.)
How do you murder a corporation?
Re: Re:
You take away its profits, your go around its distribution channels and hurt it where it counts, in their pockets.
Don’t consume it but if you do go the illegal way and pay nothing to them.
Re: Re:
Let the Government have more and more say in how it operates.
“…figure out which Usenet posts were infringing and which weren’t. Not surprisingly, that’s impossible, and NSE has announced that it’s just shutting down entirely instead.”
Complete bullshit. Just stop spreading alt.binaries.* and you stop 99% of all illegal materials on Usenet. Why is that so hard?
Re: Response to: Alex Hagen on Nov 7th, 2011 @ 4:06pm
99%, even if accurate, is not sufficent given the ruling.
Re: Re:
Complete bullshit. Just stop spreading alt.binaries.* and you stop 99% of all illegal materials on Usenet. Why is that so hard?
And you could stop 99% of illegal postal activity by banning the shipments of packages. Is that a good idea?
RE: you are ALL wrong
Usenet doesn’t promote “piracy” just like guns don’t kill people, BULLETS kill people, just like PEOPLE pirate content
SO ban bullets for guns and people from the internet
See how simple logic is
(yes this IS sarcasm, DUH! IDIOTS)
Re: RE: you are ALL wrong
SO ban bullets for guns and people from the internet
You say this in jest, but it’s already happening.
Re: RE: you are ALL wrong
Usenet doesn’t promote “piracy” just like guns don’t kill people, BULLETS kill people, just like PEOPLE pirate content
No, bullets don’t kill people, it’s the bullet holes that kill them. 😉
Well… the Europeans don’t generally have the same respect for free speech that we enjoy. This is not all that surprising. It is a horrible infringement of the state and monied interests on the rights of the people that they are supposed to represent, but not a surprising one.
When similar issues come home to the United States, I expect (and really hope) that our courts will see it differently.
Re: Re:
Do you actually read this blog? Frankly would prefer it if America would stay out of us Europeans right to free speech! Where do you think the pressure is from – those well known purveyors of global cultural imperialism – The Dutch?
Re: Re: Re:
I was referring to the laws and culture upon which our respective societies were built. If you want better laws, find better politicians. We had some really good ones in the past, and that legal history will help us more than a lot of European states.
I’m not arguing that our lobbyists aren’t asshats. That’s basically their job. I just believe (and really hope) they can be over come for the common good here.
Easynews
I wonder if they have a countdown clock over at Easynews. They are the 500 pound gorilla, if they get shut down, the party is WAY over.
Makes me wonder why NSE went down without a fight.
I’d really like to see the EFF help out with this one… of course, the RIAA also runs the risk of bringing a LOT of new subscribers to Usenet if they start a huge public war. Probably 95% of all file sharers have no idea that it even exists, so if suddenly the press is alight with stories about the “deep, dark underbelly of internet file sharing you never knew about” membership will skyrocket!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091114/1835036932.shtml
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
You idiot, the only thing that chart shows is some increased revenue from live shows.
The aggregate in the real world is still down, and that chart completely ignores that pesky thing known as “inflation”.
But nice try, psychopath.
Desperation is wishing to overturn the law of the land because you’re unwilling to adapt.
I agree, Masnick. When are you going to come to grips with the fact that copyright is here to stay?
People have adapted to that notion for centuries now. When are you going to bring yourself into the world of reality?
Once again: I offer to you my services free of charge.
Sorry, but I already have numerous interns. And they would eat your sorry ass alive.
Re: Re:
I bet you eat your interns’ sorry asses! Literally! Now buzz off, you shilling POS! How much do you get paid to spew your inane drivel here anyway? Try no being such a twat. Just once. Bet you can’t. So, in conclusion, I suggest you STFU, GTFOH, and GDIAF, you pantywaist, blubbering pisspot.
Re: Re: Re:
Meet Anon. He’s Torrentfreak’s psychopathic rambler who always goes on about piracy but can’t quite form a valid argument together.
Sure, the words look pretty. But as you can see, he undermines himself. You don’t chagrin him, for that merely riles him up and forces out his troll-like tendencies. Instead, you use the power of logic against him. For example:
You idiot, the only thing that chart shows is some increased revenue from live shows.
Now if you look at the chart here, you’ll notice that there are five different topics for discussion. Live revenue, recorded revenue, and PRS revenue. So already, he’s wrong. Then you look at the next topic of contention:
The aggregate in the real world is still down, and that chart completely ignores that pesky thing known as “inflation”.
One does not follow the other so it’s easily dismissed. We have no way of understanding why the aggregate is down save the fact that there are competitors to the music industry that Anon does not know about. The inflation thing is a red herring so pay it no heed.
So let’s go on to the next part:
When are you going to come to grips with the fact that copyright is here to stay?
Now if you follow the blog, you’ll notice that copyright is getting more and more egregious, and preventing a lot of legal behavior. Will copyright “stay” in its current form forever? I highly doubt it. The more a business uses copyright enforcement against consumers, the more likely that business will hemorrhage money.
So don’t let Anon taunt you. He likes to try to get a rise out of people, but when he’s wrong (which is always) he’s so far out there that you can just point and laugh instead of taunting him.
*The more you know*
Usenet would adapt
Do you seriously believe that if they removed the .Binaries that the “offending” material would disapear, it would just get published on a different thread. The Content industries need to adapt not force internet censorship on us.
Curious. It seems our resident maximalists do not comprehend the fact that the name of a file and/or its extension does not always necessarily indicate what the file actually is. Or that files can be packaged inside other files. For example, a video file could be compressed inside a .zip file. The number of possible combinations is virtually limitless, because files can so easily be altered on that superficial level without significantly affecting their usability. All the recipient would have to do is change the extension to the appropriate type if it were altered, for instance, or decompress any packaged files. And the name of the file need not directly refer to its content in order for it to be shared.
This, the ease of manipulating file names, location, and structure, is much of what makes it impossible to simply screen out infringing files as maximalists think can be done. That and the sheer number of files one would have to go through. A number that is easily and rapidly increased with the merest amount of time and effort. Also, maximalists fail to state how one distinguishes an infringing file from a non-infringing one. What characteristics in the file itself make one different from the other, if any. In actuality, there is no difference. None whatsoever. There is no structural or operational difference, for example, between an mp3 file bought on iTunes and one of the same song downloaded from the Pirate Bay. They are identical. And, given both and not saying which came from where, it is virtually impossible for anyone to tell them apart or to determine with any certainty their point of origin.
Re: Re:
You could have saved yourself some typing:
“It seems our resident maximalists do not comprehend… facts”
That’s really all you need to know.
Re: Re: Re:
Sadly, I believe they get it, but don’t care so long as they’re paid to be contrarian.
binaries on usenet have always been *stupid*
Since the early days of Usenet, when uuencode became available, idiots have been posting binaries on a TEXT based platform – in contravention to all that Usenet represents.
The majority of alt.* groups not dealing with binaries are overrule with spammers. Most of us have simply moved on to other things, having grown up and grown out of the contentiousness and waste of time that Usenet’s alt groups have become.
Usenet has been dead since AOL first flooded us with the Army of Lamers in the 1980s.
In the meantime, you can still get free usenet from google, minus the lame alt.binaries groups.
Usenet
> Without the binaries, few people will pay
> for it. Why? Because they want what is in
> the binaries… porn, warez, and pirated movies.
Not true at all. There are thousands of thriving non-binary grops, all of which are populated by hundreds of people (even thousands in some cases) who would make a decent customer base for any Usenet provider and who have no interest in all the binary crap.
Usenet
> just stop files larger than a certain
> size, which are obviously being used
> for something other than “free speech”.
So speech can only come in small text-based chunks now?
I shouldn’t be allowed to post a political movie I made expressing my opinion on what I feel to be important societal issues on alt.binaries.video.politics?