RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

There have been weak, sporadic attempts in the past, but finally the RIAA hve launched a concertive attack on Usenet providers. It had to happen eventually.

Source

Definitely watch this space and carefully review your own provider's privacy policy page.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

Indeed

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

I would guess that most would be similar.
http://www.giganews.com/legal/privacy.html
'Giganews holds personal information about you in the strictest confidence and does not sell or rent that information. Giganews will not release or divulge any customer information unless ordered to do so by a court of law. '

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

any less and i'm sure it'll break some form of data protection law.

i don't think the riaa want the people downloading just usenet.com to stop supplying it, that in turn will stop those people using usenet.com. however there are a lot of usenet providers so removing copyright material from one (if successful) won't make any difference. It would however make it easier for it to get the stuff removed from the other providers.

The main problem is, they can't enforce a blanket block on alt.binaries.* due to that containing non-copyright material too, so they have to block individual groups but that is just like removing a domain name, ie another will just be created. Whatever the outcome, it wont be finished for sometime as usenet.com probably have enough money to actually have a court case and stand a chance of winning.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

I suspect they may struggle with this.

As dev mentions, blocking specific groups won't help as new ones will pop up - or other legitimate groups will be hijacked for the content. Meanwhile I'm not convinced that the structure and design of usenet itself makes policing it possible in the same way that a tracker admin can monitor torrent tracker sites removing offending content.

The thing I'm curious about in the Ts&Cs isn't so much when these companies will share customer information but what information do they retain that could be shared? If all they retain is account details (name, address, card details, bandwidth usage maybe) then it's not much use to anybody but if they retain records of what is retrieved that's another story.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

for Giganews:

http://www.giganews.com/legal/privacy.html

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

Very mucho indeed :)

Notice they have gone for Usnet and not someone like giganews. ?

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

Perhaps they want to hit someone smaller maybe to set a precident?

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

Yes, good point. Any easy win could send shockwaves through the NG supply community.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

Thats what i was thinking

---------- Post added at 17:49 ---------- Previous post was at 17:48 ----------

I think it would as well

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

I'm not suprised at all if the service was actively promoting illegal activity. I doubt there's going to be any snowball effect from this. Usenet is pretty watertight, if the **AA had a chance of shutting down all the usenet servers based on the NSP/ISP being responisble for the content then they'd have started legal action a long time ago. Instead, they've just been poking ISP's trying to get their servers closed with minimal effect, unless you're with the ISP in question of course.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

*phew*

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

*un-phew*

I wouldn't consider that privacy statement on the part of Giganews to be in any way a form of protection for its users. They, themselves, many not "monitor or record" your activities on line but they do however undertake to provide "personal information or usage information" to "investigators, attorneys, or agencies" if directed to do so.

Furthermore they state, worryingly for anyone who thinks they are the good guys in this scenario, that they are "under a duty not to divulge the fact of the investigation to the customer."

In other words they'll happily pass on whatever information they have on you from a personal / usage point of view and not bother telling you that the RIAA or whoever is beating a track to your door.

It's a business which charges money for a service and profits directly from facilitating the illegal distribution of copyrighted works.

The RIAA are emboldened by their recent success against Jammie Thomas, a single mother downloading for her own use, not for profit.

Quite why anyone would think that Giganews and its customers are not in the RIAA's sights, or that its users are safe from prosecution, is beyond me.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

But there is a huge difference

Those with massive fines and payouts awarded against them have been those sharing the media. P2P works by sharing and its the making available of copyrighted material which carries the heavy fines. Now I realise downloading of such media is also illegal and would carry heavy punishment its not like your actually distributing. Unless of course you do upload to use net

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammie_Thomas (highlighted and underlined point)


http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-wraps-up.html more here

uk law http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/cybercrime/cybercrime.htm


few interesting points there on civil and criminal differences

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

There isn't really a huge difference.

She was found guilty of distributing the songs without the prosecution even having to provide anything beyond information relevant to her IP and username. They had no physical proof that she had distributed anything - certainly not her hard drive - yet a guilty verdict was arrived at on the basis of the IP and traffic info provided by safenet - the very same info that Giganews don't "monitor or record".

Just because Giganews maintain that they themselves don't monitor or record stuff does not mean that others in the consultative pay of interested parties don't.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

but my point is usenet stores files centrally. Yes this relies on uses uploading but if a user does not upload to the server he/she has not distributed. The whole architecture of usenet and p2p/BT is fundamentally different technically

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

I appreciate that Zing - but the bottom line is that theft is theft.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

yeah I do not dispute that but the law is tighter on the distributer that much is clear. The case you pointed to clearly says the damages are per song and it also clearly states its cuz it was shared ie distributed

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

Yes, but let's not lose sight of the facts here.

The prosecution did not have her physical drive (the distributing "host") ergo her culpability as a distributor was proven by records obtained and provided by Safenet.

This has set a precedent in more than one key area - ie. they don't need to catch you with or find you in possession of the materials - whether you are uploading them or not. They simply require a trail in the shape of an IP or logging identifier.

Distribution is not a numbers game - one person sharing a copy with one other person is distributing that copy.

She "shared / distributed" 1,702 files but was found guilty of "sharing / distributing" only 24 of those. What made the other 1,678 not worthy of a fine?

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

as you say they prob traced it. That being the case they wont find me sharing/distributing anything as I think p2p and BT is the spawn of the devil

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

A wise move, I think the heady days of copyright theft being seen as "you can't catch me" behaviour are slowly coming to an end.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

And if one's mac has been cloned...?

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

That would be my defense. It would be for Virgin to prove my modem had NOT been cloned.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

Perhaps there was no evidence of her sharing the files? I would presume the files need to be downloaded by the person filing the claim in order to prove they were distributed. I can create an mp3 of white noise and put it on p2p naming it after a popular song by a popular band. I wouldn't be breaking any laws in doing so.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

Juror Michael Hegg stated "The jury was convinced that Thomas was a pirate after hearing evidence that the Kazaa account RIAA investigators were monitoring matched Thomas' internet protocol and modem addresses."

It's a good thing cloning modems is impossible, or something.

---------- Post added at 19:31 ---------- Previous post was at 19:23 ----------

If there were no evidence of her sharing the files then they would not have been submitted as such.

No, "Making available" is sufficient. The actual act of distribution is largely irrelevant. Think of it as "intent to supply" - it does not actually have to take place to be an offence.

Actually, you would.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

What law would I be breaking then?

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

If you have the money I'll set aside the time.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

I have the money :)

Seriously: I doubt it is illegal to 'distribute the title of copyrighted materials', if so, the people in the 'what are you listening to now' thread would be in serious trouble. If I put an mp3 online that claims to be a copyrighted material but is in fact not, then surely I would not be breaching copyrights?

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

It is actually even illegal to distribute silence in a recorded work, the precedent for this was set in 2002 . I didn't say there was anything illegal in distributing the title of copyrighted works - copyright affords no protection to song titles due to their relative lack of uniqueness. What you were suggesting initially was "impersonation" which could be construed by the popular band, group, artiste in question as a wilful attempt to undervalue or misrepresent their copyrighted works.

You cannot create an "original" MP3 of anything that is not covered by existing copyright laws. Once something is created, copyright applies automatically (your copyright, admittedly). Putting something which is the result of a creative endeavour in the public domain and claiming it is not copyrighted would not be factually correct and the creator (copyright holder) would be well within his / her / their rights to sue.

It would not, however, make sense for you to sue yourself but you can rest assured, as evidenced in the Batt case referenced above, "Where there's a hit there's a writ".

It's a very convoluted area of law, but law nonetheless.

That'll be £48.70 + VAT thanks.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

:clap:

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

and that will be an incite into the earnings off MR A ;) fair play that man

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

Ah, but presumably this means that in order to bring proceedings against someone for distributing copyrighted materials (without the permission of the copyright holder), it still has to be proved that this person was indeed distributing said materials. Which would be kind of hard unless a copy of the materials was actually obtained? Unless reasonable suspicion is sufficient that is.

Oh... You didn't actually say you wanted it did you? I genuiney thought you just wanted to know if I had it :)

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

But officer I only download 1's and 0's it just the defragmentation on my drive that arranges them into something that sounds good on my stereo. It's magic!

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

Not really. I'm just trying to establish if they need to actually obtain a copy of the item as prove that you were sharing something. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

The RIAA did not need to provide physical proof of Jammie Thomas's distribution of copyrighted works, merely providing enough compelling evidence of her intent / ability to do so was enough. Interestingly none of the recipients of her illegally "distributed" works were / have been charged. The woman was an idiot - as was her chosen method of defence.

Ignorance is no defence - you have 28 days*.


*Does anyone have Moorcrofts number?

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

Ah, fair enough :)


Here you go:
http://www.moorcroft.com/Site/Contact/
That'll be £50 ex VAT :)

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

Good one!!

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

This is the bit that worries me about the way they're orchestrating these trials. There are a large number of PCs out there with file sharing enabled for a home LAN where the owners don't realise they're sharing them across the internet too. That's the ability to share but only because of the ignorance of the user - not because of any intent to do so.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

Brundles, sharing music files on any network (whether internet accessible or not) is technically illegal - just look at the numbers of universities and companies that have been sued.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

It is technically illegal for me to listen to the music the neighbours are playing on their hifi too. Maybe I should inform the RIAA instead of the council next time they start playing it at 3am :)

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

Oh the irony: the actual site for Moorcroft debt recovery is

http://www.moordebt.com/

What idiot thought that one up :rolleyes:

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

I'm not disputing that but if the case is hinged on the ability technically being there - as it was here - then it doesn't matter if music was there and shared. The fact that an unsecure directory (take that My Music one Windows creates which may well be empty) is open because Windows tried to be helpful would under these grounds be enough.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

in no way a defence but............
all p2p software can be used to share legit files. When some p2p software is installed it will (depending on software) select a folder that it will "share" with other users, what happens if this just happens to contain my mp3 collection i paid for :( damn software i didnt know !

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

I was amazed a few years back when I started using p2p to find that a considerable number of users actually had shared their *whole* harddisk.
These presumably the more naive users, but there were many many occasions when listing their shared stuff would display root windows files.

Not exactly relevant, but an indicator of just how unknowing some of these people can be.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

Well, Usenet.com have lost.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07...a_usenet_case/

Bad news for all Usenet users. Whether you use it to download legal files or otherwise, you could find your provider hit anyway.

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

flood gates open on court cases news server move to countries that will not allow such court judgements and before long its business as usual. I hope

Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider
 

I must admit, I'm slightly surprised they won given the way (as I understand it) the technology works. That said, if someone who can position themselves as neutral in this can lose then there's no hope for a certain indexing site that's currently in the legal crosshairs.

I agree with zing though - it'll be the same as with the torrent trackers years ago. Most of them shut up shop for as long as it took to relocate to somewhere that didn't care. (With the exception of Loki torrent who took the donations given to fight and bought themselves an amnesty!)

By this stage it's a case of the stable door being closed after the horse has bolted.