Miss Sarcasm
New member
And most attention is seemingly on BT anyway. Nothing is absolutely safe, there's risks to all, but at least it is safer than most filesharing methods these days.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How "safe" is Usenet
- Thread starter Mattt
- Start date
nerdy_boyluv
New member
In the U.S., the biggest 'problem' with usenet use is the transmission media, and by that I mean that by far the most common HSI (high speed internet) connection is via 'party line' systems such as cable-TV.
Because an entire neighborhood (or even city) is on a single 'shared' line, the companies are very aggressive ('network management' they call it) toward what they define as 'excessive consumption'; and usenet traffic is right up there with P2P and FYP use as 'known problems' and are specifically singled out in their 'Acceptable Use Policy's'.
Up until very recently, consumer grade accounts didn't have any set 'CAPS', and this resulted in widely varying and enforcement of unpublished 'CAPS'. Comcast, the largest cable-TV company and largest internet provider in the U.S., finally settled on a 250GB/Month cap in the last couple of years. However, they are still using 'fuzzy language' in their commercial contracts.
Interestingly, one of their tv commercials selling those business level services, they claim that 8 office workers can easily use their service. When contacted as to, did that mean that their CAP on commercial accounts was 8 times the level of their consumer service (250GB x 8 or 2TB/Month), they revert to their 'fuzzy language'.
Rapidly disappearing DSL service, which historically had little if any CAPS, has now been targeted by the few telcos aggressively pushing the service, to stunningly low levels (As little as 5GB/Month).
Other providers, such as 3G (and 4G) wireless, are grappling with the issue in typical fashion. That is, either not at all or implementing high cost/low CAPS.
Many 'providers' have been caught messing around with the transmission of transfer protocols, in fact that was the original problem cited by the FCC re: Comcast a few years ago. That has really put the problem completely up in the air now that the courts have gotten involved and made rulings that don't make sense.
But life goes on. The Commercial entities, who buy internet access at the wholesale level, for literally pennies on the Terabyte, continue to figure out ways to sell it (at the retail) for hundreds of dollars on the Megabyte.
Meanwhile, they are just now figuring out that doing so is cutting off their nose despite their face, as their Wireless (Cell phone) divisions face huge cost increases providing wireless internet to their wide ranging cell towers, which (of course) are smack dab in the middle of a competitors land-line systems.
So, it's a never ending circle-jerk of greed. So, the biggest impediment to either downloading OR uploading continues to be the 'local loop', irrespective of any legal problems, one way or the other.
Because an entire neighborhood (or even city) is on a single 'shared' line, the companies are very aggressive ('network management' they call it) toward what they define as 'excessive consumption'; and usenet traffic is right up there with P2P and FYP use as 'known problems' and are specifically singled out in their 'Acceptable Use Policy's'.
Up until very recently, consumer grade accounts didn't have any set 'CAPS', and this resulted in widely varying and enforcement of unpublished 'CAPS'. Comcast, the largest cable-TV company and largest internet provider in the U.S., finally settled on a 250GB/Month cap in the last couple of years. However, they are still using 'fuzzy language' in their commercial contracts.
Interestingly, one of their tv commercials selling those business level services, they claim that 8 office workers can easily use their service. When contacted as to, did that mean that their CAP on commercial accounts was 8 times the level of their consumer service (250GB x 8 or 2TB/Month), they revert to their 'fuzzy language'.
Rapidly disappearing DSL service, which historically had little if any CAPS, has now been targeted by the few telcos aggressively pushing the service, to stunningly low levels (As little as 5GB/Month).
Other providers, such as 3G (and 4G) wireless, are grappling with the issue in typical fashion. That is, either not at all or implementing high cost/low CAPS.
Many 'providers' have been caught messing around with the transmission of transfer protocols, in fact that was the original problem cited by the FCC re: Comcast a few years ago. That has really put the problem completely up in the air now that the courts have gotten involved and made rulings that don't make sense.
But life goes on. The Commercial entities, who buy internet access at the wholesale level, for literally pennies on the Terabyte, continue to figure out ways to sell it (at the retail) for hundreds of dollars on the Megabyte.
Meanwhile, they are just now figuring out that doing so is cutting off their nose despite their face, as their Wireless (Cell phone) divisions face huge cost increases providing wireless internet to their wide ranging cell towers, which (of course) are smack dab in the middle of a competitors land-line systems.
So, it's a never ending circle-jerk of greed. So, the biggest impediment to either downloading OR uploading continues to be the 'local loop', irrespective of any legal problems, one way or the other.
xe12ladeeda
New member
No ISP cares about copyright infringment. Without infringement ISP's would be out of business. No leech = No customer.
Completely true, the only reason they will probably act and send you a cease and desist letter is if some movie company gets really anal about it and goes on a crusade.
D (A/V) ID
New member
That assumption is not accurate.
In Bittorrent and ED2K, the anti-P2P enforcers have always made accusations & filed claims on every IP address they could harvest from a download swarm, regardless of whether the computer behind any particular IP had actually uploaded any data to the accuser.
People using *no-upload* BT and ED2K clients -and therefore never uploaded anything- will still get hit with an infringement claim. ED2K users who cancel the download before ever getting to the end of the queue (ED2K users know what I mean) --and therefore never uploaded OR DOWNLOADED anything-- will still get hit with an infringement notice. I know this for a fact because it happened to me once.
But don't just take my word for it. A 2008 University of Washington research paper titled Challenges and Directions for Monitoring P2P File Sharing Networks -or- Why My Printer Received a DMCA Takedown Notice documented the false and reckless accusations the anti-P2P enforcers routinely make.
see http://torrentfreak.com/study-reveals-reckless-anti-piracy-antics-080605/
I think you're missing the point here. Out of the tens of thousands of RIAA lawsuits (and threats of lawsuits), only two ever went to trial. In the current mass-lawsuits against an even greater number of Bittorrent users, it's quite possible that none will go to trial, as the law firms which created this sue-o-rama and recruited plaintiRAB admitted it is being done strictly for profit (rather than any need for establishing legal precedent). Going to court is not even necessary for the plaintiRAB to strike gold because the vast majority of accused people will simply pay up rather than take on the vastly greater expense of hiring a law firm and taking it all the way. (So-called 'nuisance lawsuits' are generally handled this way.) This is what makes 'protection rackets', compulsory bribes, and other extortion tactics so effective: it's much cheaper to submit than fight.
In the first Jammie Thomas trial, the judge ruled that simply *making available* counted as copyright infringement (therefore no actual uploading need take place) but this was thrown out on appeal. In several other countries, downloading for personal use (with no P2P uploading component) is considered legal, but this is apparently not in the USA.
In Bittorrent and ED2K, the anti-P2P enforcers have always made accusations & filed claims on every IP address they could harvest from a download swarm, regardless of whether the computer behind any particular IP had actually uploaded any data to the accuser.
People using *no-upload* BT and ED2K clients -and therefore never uploaded anything- will still get hit with an infringement claim. ED2K users who cancel the download before ever getting to the end of the queue (ED2K users know what I mean) --and therefore never uploaded OR DOWNLOADED anything-- will still get hit with an infringement notice. I know this for a fact because it happened to me once.
But don't just take my word for it. A 2008 University of Washington research paper titled Challenges and Directions for Monitoring P2P File Sharing Networks -or- Why My Printer Received a DMCA Takedown Notice documented the false and reckless accusations the anti-P2P enforcers routinely make.
see http://torrentfreak.com/study-reveals-reckless-anti-piracy-antics-080605/
Unless a usenet provider keeps download logs (and presumably none do) then there is no way anyone can know who is downloading a file - and therefore nobody to target. But possessing warez might be illegal - people have been charged when police notice someone possessing stacks of DVDs of unreleased movies (possibly downloaded from Usenet) and US customs officials can confiscate computers and drives in search of warez of people entering the country.OK on p2p the activities are combined, but on Usenet they are not. I think that is why there are None, not some, not few, but no actual cases in the US of anyone charged for any USENET downloads.
If anyone feels anything else is the case I would appreciate actual case citations , and not prior or subsequent press releases, or lazy reporting, using the term, but actual decisions where someone solely downloading has suffered a civil penalty and where solely downloading is the charge in the actual filing or decision.
I think you're missing the point here. Out of the tens of thousands of RIAA lawsuits (and threats of lawsuits), only two ever went to trial. In the current mass-lawsuits against an even greater number of Bittorrent users, it's quite possible that none will go to trial, as the law firms which created this sue-o-rama and recruited plaintiRAB admitted it is being done strictly for profit (rather than any need for establishing legal precedent). Going to court is not even necessary for the plaintiRAB to strike gold because the vast majority of accused people will simply pay up rather than take on the vastly greater expense of hiring a law firm and taking it all the way. (So-called 'nuisance lawsuits' are generally handled this way.) This is what makes 'protection rackets', compulsory bribes, and other extortion tactics so effective: it's much cheaper to submit than fight.
In the first Jammie Thomas trial, the judge ruled that simply *making available* counted as copyright infringement (therefore no actual uploading need take place) but this was thrown out on appeal. In several other countries, downloading for personal use (with no P2P uploading component) is considered legal, but this is apparently not in the USA.
misslkelsey12
New member
Your quote of me edits out "at least in the US." My point is entirely 100% accurate for the US.
There are literally thousands of filings on findlaw and I don't see a single one where that is the casePeople using *no-upload* BT and ED2K clients -and therefore never uploaded anything- will still get hit with an infringement claim.
please indicate citations in findlaw or Lexis for this. Every single one I see indicated people are being charged with selling (IE also distribution).Unless a usenet provider keeps download logs (and presumably none do) then there is no way anyone can know who is downloading a file - and therefore nobody to target. But possessing warez might be illegal - people have been charged when police notice someone possessing stacks of DVDs of unreleased movies (possibly downloaded from Usenet) and US customs officials can confiscate computers and drives in search of warez of people entering the country.
I don't think you understand the law. In thousands of cases, trial or not there are preliminary filings. There are thousands of cases and not one for downloading alone.I think you're missing the point here. Out of the tens of thousands of RIAA lawsuits (and threats of lawsuits), only two ever went to trial.
zot;3470813In the first Jammie Thomas trial said:Making available is a synonym for distribution attempted distribution. In fact the case illustrates my point exactly, Thomas was not exposed for mere acquisition.
As far as the article on the University of Washington paper I think that illustrates my point and doesn't go against it at all. I think you are misreading it. What the authors found alarming in was that distribution of tracker information (announce url") triggers the the notices in that experiment.
And ultimately you don't seem to understand that False positives from mass enforcement schemes don't prove illegality or even indicate successful prosecution.
Completely true, the only reason they will probably act and send you a cease and desist letter is if some movie company gets really anal about it and goes on a crusade.
Well, under DMCA, the ISP becomes legally liable if they don't pass on the C&D letter, and no ISP is gonna have a legal battle with RIAA/MPAA/ect for one customer.
No isp is going to micromanage what their users do, and they dont care. Who would really want to keep track of what millions of people are downloading, what sites they go to, ect. They don't have the storage space for the logs. They're completely reactive. Law enforcement asks for something, the ISP agrees to give the info. C&D letter comes in, they pass it on. Its not really a big deal or hard to figure out.
How "safe" is Usenet
The best security measure is to use a provider that doesn't care about