Comments on: RIAA triumphs in Usenet copyright case

In a note posted on its site, music trade group for top music labels says court ruled in its favor.

[dargon19888]

Uhm I hate to break it to you but Usenet was a 'peer to peer' network.

Does someone have to tell the author how a news feed works?

[Lerianis3]

Yeah, Usenet was never a p2p network..... things were hosted on servers all over the world and it was the server operators who decided what was allowed on their servers, i.e. which Usenet groups they supported.
Usenet.com was a company who provided ACCESS to Usenet by keeping Usenet servers, just like Comcast and numerous other ISP's at one time did. I don't see Comcast being slammed over this, but then again, Comcast never advertised their Usenet service while they had it, you had to find it yourself.

[ralfthedog]

Usenet is P2P on the server side.

[Random_Walk]

Oy, vey...

1) Google for the acronym "NNTP" before any of ye go talking with any authority about what USENET is and is not (not the .com, but the real newsgroups) I can't believe I'm backing up Lerianis here...

2) Get offa my lawn!

[Renegade Knight]

It was a Web 2.0 app before anyone else came up with the idea of user genrated content. It was used for pirating but so is the postal service. Offering a service doesn't equate to piracy even if some of your users choose to do so. Your service would have to be in the sole business of piracy. "Pirated CD's created and sold here!" That's piracy and that business would not have a defence.

I used to spend some time in the 4x4 news groupls. Good information and folks in there. Hate to see usenet (not that my ISP offers access anymore...one more reason to dump my ISP...) go by the wayside.

[Trerro]

Over 90% of Usenet is text-only groups... it's basically the world's oldest forum system, and it's completely unmoderated (with the exception of a VERY small number of *.moderated groups). Discussions of pretty much every topic imaginable exist, and it's low resource requirement makes it especially popular in countries where broadband and/or reliable connections aren't widely available.

It's unmoderated nature unfortunately also means it's heavily spammed, which has made it far less popular than it was in the past, but it remains an excellent source of both information and discussions/debates/etc, as well as having groups that are more for silly fun.

There are also binary groups which files are uploaded too. Like the rest of Usenet, these groups are categorized, so you can simply browse by category tree to find what you want (or use a search tool if you know a file name or subject line you're looking for.) These groups are also unmoderated, so it goes without saying that is a good amount of illegal material - both in the copyright and the "this used to be classified" sense.

These files, however, account for a really, really, tiny portion of Usenet. Much like every forum system in the world occasionally gets illegal stuff uploaded to it.

What's important to understand is that Usenet is an ad hoc network - there are no central servers for a group, servers simply feed each other whatever gets posted to them - continuously, and automatically. Attempting to filter copyrighted material off of your server is impossible, as it's not just a question of what got posted to yours, it's what it's automatically pulling in from THOUSANDS of other servers. Furthermore, Usenet has over 200,000 groups - yes, that isn't a typo. It is not possible to find every infringing file in hundreds of thousands of groups, which thousands of different feeds supplying your server's version of each group.

Service providers have long been protected from the actions of their users, as courts have understood that being required to police content would make a small company instantly backrupt, and a large one forced to have a HUGE policing staff, which they would only be able to pay for by passing the enormous bill onto customers. The second the safe harbor laws are no longer in effect, the entire internet as we know it is effectively dead.

IANAL, but this is likely a VERY dangerous precedent, which could be used to sue ISPs, modern forum admins... and well, pretty much anyone that allows a user to contribute anything in any way..

The only reason the RIAA won this case is that sadly, very few people know how Usenet actually works... including apparently the author of this blog. Please do a bit of research next time.

[Chris Meadows]

Except the suit wasn't against Usenet as a whole. It was against that one website site, Usenet.com. And what the article says is that the case turned on the behavior of that one specific site, not of the Usenet network as a whole.

There are a number of websites that are making their money by essentially selling the ability to download illicit files faster. Usenet.com is one of them?they're not just selling read/write access to Usenet, they're actually promoting themselves as a way to download binary files. I'm pretty sure I've seen "Download it from Usenet.com" links (which, of course, lead to membership-fee-based signup page) on several bittorrent search sites.

[SaturatedFats]

The reason USENET lost is NOT because the court did not know how Usenet actually works. The reason USENET is because they egregiously violated the law and offended the court by willful destruction of evidence. You really should read the Court's order and opinion before spouting off such nonsense. It's available online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/17016091/20090630usenetorderandopinion .

[unknown unknown]

Another bad ruling, hopefully it will be appealed. Besides the RIAA did not win on merit, since their victory was the result of a sanction. The DMCA Safe harbor and Betamax are still intact.

[John_Duncan_Yoyo]

If I understand the facts correctly usenet.com failed to cooperate in the discovery portion of the trial. Witnesses were not made available. they destroyed evidence and lied about it. They pretty much fell on their own swords and forced the judge to rule against them. Usenet.com handed the RIAA Bastiches a victory but nothing resembling a precedent.

[ralfthedog]

No more alt.spam.virus or alt.ascii.porn. :(

PS. Anyone that buys music from an RIAA member is a cat sniffer!

[4wight]

what'sw rong with sniffing cats?

[Middletown]

yeah really whats wrong with sniffin cats?

Now theres a cage match for you.

RIAA meet PETA :)~

[troppp]

Here's what happens when you sniff cats:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlHNUESEEP4&feature=PlayList&p=1C0B5919245215AF&index=0

[ralfthedog]

"what'sw rong with sniffing cats?"

Perverts!!!

[jtjt145]

Every so often it strikes me that judges are not excluded from the frailties of human stupidity.

In the US, though, especially when the interests of large corporations versus the interests of the general consumers are concerned, this stupidity seems to take on epidemic proportions.

That, or they have already all been lobbied by the likes of Micro$oft, RIA, MAFIAA ...

[gertruded]

Yes the US is run by and for profit making corporations. The DMCA was paid for by campaign contributions. There are THOUSANDS of paid corporate lobbyists in Washington. They are paid because they do their job.

[drbyte]

Would have been news in 99'

Now not so much. These guys are way late.

[eudefender]

usenet != usenet.com

[Renegade Knight]

Why would anyone be responsible for the criminal acts of others? Apparently this is the courts way of thinking these days.

[hassan_bin_sober]

If ya don't like the brand of justice ya get here, go out and make your own!

[aawindoze2]

Wow, Usenet? Are you kidding me? Thats absurd. No one downloads songs or movies from Usenet. Multi part MIME attafchments are a royal PAIN! Stupid RIAA!

RT
[CNET editor's note: Prohibited spam deleted.]

[johngruber]

Many people download via usenet.

Someone commented on Comcast etc... Don't most of them outsource that to Giganews? I guess newsgroup replication is a crime if the replicated content is copyrighted. So not just Giganews ( the big dog here), but every replicated usenet service provider is at risk of being sued. Not good.

[igorz07]

So, if usenet.com is responsible to the RIAA for its content, then usenet providers should (theoretically) also be responsible to their customers for virus-infested binaries that form the majority of usenet content.

Pursued by both customers and 3rd parties, it sounds like curtains for usenet. Not that it will be missed