FYI: RIAA tries to pull plug on Usenet. Seriously.

(from http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9798715-38.html )

October 16, 2007 5:56 PM PDT
RIAA tries to pull plug on Usenet. Seriously.
Posted by Declan McCullagh
The Recording Industry Association of America has found a new legal target
for a copyright lawsuit: Usenet.

In a lawsuit filed on October 12, the RIAA says that Usenet newsgroups
contain "millions of copyrighted sound recordings" in violation of federal
law.

Only Usenet.com is named as a defendant for now, but the same logic would
let the RIAA sue hundreds of universities, Internet service providers, and
other newsgroup archives. AT&T offers Usenet, as does Verizon, Stanford
University and other companies including Giganews.

That's what makes this lawsuit important. If the RIAA can win against
Usenet.com, other Usenet providers are at legal risk, too.

For those of you who are relative newcomers to the Internet, Usenet was a
wildly popular way to distribute conversations and binary files long before
the Web or peer-to-peer networks existed. It's divided up into tens of
thousands of "newsgroups"--discussion areas arranged hierarchically and
sporting names like sci.med.aids, rec.motorcycles, and comp.os.linux.admin.
A handful are moderated; most are not. For efficiency's sake, recent posts
to newsgroups are stored on the Usenet provider's server (as opposed to
saved on a subscriber's computer as mailing lists are).

Some newsgroups, like alt.binaries.pictures, are devoted to the distribution
of binary files. Of particular relevance to the RIAA lawsuit is that there
are around 652 newsgroups with the phrase "MP3" in their names. (For storage
space reasons, not all Usenet providers offer binary newsgroups. Google's
Web-based interface to Usenet doesn't, for instance.)

The RIAA sued Usenet.com, which is based in Fargo, N.D., in the southern
district of New York. The lawsuit claims Usenet.com encourages its customers
to pay up to $19 a month by enticing them with copyrighted music, and asks
for a permanent injunction barring the company from "aiding, encouraging,
enabling, inducing, causing, materially contributing to, or otherwise
facilitating" copyright infringement.

There are some differences between Usenet.com and some of the other
newsgroup providers that will help the RIAA. Usenet.com boasts that signing
up for an account "gives you access to millions of MP3 files and also
enables you to post your own files the same way and share them with the
whole world."

Clearly they didn't run that language by their lawyers first.

So will the RIAA win? Thanks to improvident boasts like that, they stand a
good chance. One reason the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Grokster is
that the justices believed that StreamCast's executives had tried to lure
pirates into using the Morpheus application. The justices also said that
neither company filtered copyrighted material and "the business models
employed by Grokster and StreamCast confirm that their principal object was
use of their software to download copyrighted works."

What the RIAA's doing here is a classic litigation strategy: sue someone who
a judge is likely to say is a clear offender, and then invoke that decision
when targeting someone who's a more marginal case. Usenet.com may be first,
in other words, but newsgroup providers like AT&T, Verizon, and Stanford may
well be next.

Yawn!!!!

Who cares!!!!

In article <Q8jRi.6355$>,
says...
> (from http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9798715-38.html )
>
> October 16, 2007 5:56 PM PDT
> RIAA tries to pull plug on Usenet. Seriously.
> Posted by Declan McCullagh
> The Recording Industry Association of America has found a new legal target
> for a copyright lawsuit: Usenet.
>
> In a lawsuit filed on October 12, the RIAA says that Usenet newsgroups
> contain "millions of copyrighted sound recordings" in violation of federal
> law.
>
> Only Usenet.com is named as a defendant for now, but the same logic would
> let the RIAA sue hundreds of universities, Internet service providers, and
> other newsgroup archives. AT&T offers Usenet, as does Verizon, Stanford
> University and other companies including Giganews.
>
> That's what makes this lawsuit important. If the RIAA can win against
> Usenet.com, other Usenet providers are at legal risk, too.
>
> For those of you who are relative newcomers to the Internet, Usenet was a
> wildly popular way to distribute conversations and binary files long before
> the Web or peer-to-peer networks existed. It's divided up into tens of
> thousands of "newsgroups"--discussion areas arranged hierarchically and
> sporting names like sci.med.aids, rec.motorcycles, and comp.os.linux.admin.
> A handful are moderated; most are not. For efficiency's sake, recent posts
> to newsgroups are stored on the Usenet provider's server (as opposed to
> saved on a subscriber's computer as mailing lists are).

I think it will be a great day, like the early days of Usenet, when they
stop allowing mime encoded attachments to messages. If usenet went back
to non-binaries it would be a great place again, and ISP's would not
have to outsource their service to larger companies that specialize in
Usenet service.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(remove 999 for proper email address)

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:03:19 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> In article <Q8jRi.6355$>,
> says...
>> (from http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9798715-38.html )
>>
>> October 16, 2007 5:56 PM PDT
>> RIAA tries to pull plug on Usenet. Seriously.
>> Posted by Declan McCullagh
>> The Recording Industry Association of America has found a new legal target
>> for a copyright lawsuit: Usenet.
>>
>> In a lawsuit filed on October 12, the RIAA says that Usenet newsgroups
>> contain "millions of copyrighted sound recordings" in violation of federal
>> law.
>>
>> Only Usenet.com is named as a defendant for now, but the same logic would
>> let the RIAA sue hundreds of universities, Internet service providers, and
>> other newsgroup archives. AT&T offers Usenet, as does Verizon, Stanford
>> University and other companies including Giganews.
>>
>> That's what makes this lawsuit important. If the RIAA can win against
>> Usenet.com, other Usenet providers are at legal risk, too.
>>
>> For those of you who are relative newcomers to the Internet, Usenet was a
>> wildly popular way to distribute conversations and binary files long before
>> the Web or peer-to-peer networks existed. It's divided up into tens of
>> thousands of "newsgroups"--discussion areas arranged hierarchically and
>> sporting names like sci.med.aids, rec.motorcycles, and comp.os.linux.admin.
>> A handful are moderated; most are not. For efficiency's sake, recent posts
>> to newsgroups are stored on the Usenet provider's server (as opposed to
>> saved on a subscriber's computer as mailing lists are).
>
> I think it will be a great day, like the early days of Usenet, when they
> stop allowing mime encoded attachments to messages. If usenet went back
> to non-binaries it would be a great place again, and ISP's would not
> have to outsource their service to larger companies that specialize in
> Usenet service.

I agree with that, there shouldn't be a need to pass binaries in news
groups. At one time if the news group needed extra content you would just
run a web site for the extra parts.

Forums and other private groups are probably much beeter for that. In the
forums I use we do pass script and source code around, it has a size limit
of about 2M but rarely comes close to that as much of it is samples of
single functions/classes. Sometimes a jokey video has been passed, but now
this sort of thing tends to be embedded with a link to the source.

I do like to have some markup language in the forums, for hilights and
such, I don't think there is as much need for pure text news groups as
there once was. The problem there is if you allow a bit of markup, people
will always ask for more, until you get close to a full html.

odf may be better, because readers can simply filter out those bits the
user opts out of, or will miss out any section it doesn't understand. So
it should satisfy those that want to use a simple reader/editor as well as
those who want it pretty, without the loss of text.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:21:17 +0100, BearItAll wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:03:19 -0400, Leythos wrote:
>
>> In article <Q8jRi.6355$>,
>> says...
>>> (from http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9798715-38.html )
>>>
>>> October 16, 2007 5:56 PM PDT
>>> RIAA tries to pull plug on Usenet. Seriously. Posted by Declan
>>> McCullagh
>>> The Recording Industry Association of America has found a new legal
>>> target for a copyright lawsuit: Usenet.
>>>
>>> In a lawsuit filed on October 12, the RIAA says that Usenet newsgroups
>>> contain "millions of copyrighted sound recordings" in violation of
>>> federal law.
>>>
>>> Only Usenet.com is named as a defendant for now, but the same logic
>>> would let the RIAA sue hundreds of universities, Internet service
>>> providers, and other newsgroup archives. AT&T offers Usenet, as does
>>> Verizon, Stanford University and other companies including Giganews.
>>>
>>> That's what makes this lawsuit important. If the RIAA can win against
>>> Usenet.com, other Usenet providers are at legal risk, too.
>>>
>>> For those of you who are relative newcomers to the Internet, Usenet
>>> was a wildly popular way to distribute conversations and binary files
>>> long before the Web or peer-to-peer networks existed. It's divided up
>>> into tens of thousands of "newsgroups"--discussion areas arranged
>>> hierarchically and sporting names like sci.med.aids, rec.motorcycles,
>>> and comp.os.linux.admin. A handful are moderated; most are not. For
>>> efficiency's sake, recent posts to newsgroups are stored on the Usenet
>>> provider's server (as opposed to saved on a subscriber's computer as
>>> mailing lists are).
>>
>> I think it will be a great day, like the early days of Usenet, when
>> they stop allowing mime encoded attachments to messages. If usenet went
>> back to non-binaries it would be a great place again, and ISP's would
>> not have to outsource their service to larger companies that specialize
>> in Usenet service.
>
> I agree with that, there shouldn't be a need to pass binaries in news
> groups. At one time if the news group needed extra content you would
> just run a web site for the extra parts.

Why shouldn't there be a need?

Just because you don't have the need, why can't someone else have it?

If you don't want binaries or don't need binaries then don't go to binary
groups. It's really simple.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

BearItAll wrote:
>
> I agree with that, there shouldn't be a need to pass binaries in news
> groups. At one time if the news group needed extra content you would
> just run a web site for the extra parts.

We run into this conflict all the time, as in "No one NEEDS an assault
rifle!"

"Need" is not the operative word; "Want" is.

"Mick Murphy" <> wrote in message
news:58AA27CF-7B8B-4302-B599-...
> Yawn!!!!
>
> Who cares!!!!


It is nice to know where to find a copy of an os that works in case Bill
Gates decides to pull the plug everytime he thinks somebody is a criminal.
Hopefully, if Vista stops working we can go to usenet to get a working copy
to get OUR data back. Of course, now a days some people think it is a crime
to take back your own property that you paid for.

Floyd


--
Mostly Free Phones dot com has many free smart phones
Unlocked phones with no contract also
batteries and accessories

survivaldealer dot com
witchwellenergy dot com

jim wrote:
> (from http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9798715-38.html )
>
> October 16, 2007 5:56 PM PDT
> RIAA tries to pull plug on Usenet. Seriously.
> Posted by Declan McCullagh
> The Recording Industry Association of America has found a new legal target
> for a copyright lawsuit: Usenet.
>
> In a lawsuit filed on October 12, the RIAA says that Usenet newsgroups
> contain "millions of copyrighted sound recordings" in violation of federal
> law.
>
> Only Usenet.com is named as a defendant for now, but the same logic would
> let the RIAA sue hundreds of universities, Internet service providers, and
> other newsgroup archives. AT&T offers Usenet, as does Verizon, Stanford
> University and other companies including Giganews.
>
> That's what makes this lawsuit important. If the RIAA can win against
> Usenet.com, other Usenet providers are at legal risk, too.
>
> For those of you who are relative newcomers to the Internet, Usenet was a
> wildly popular way to distribute conversations and binary files long before
> the Web or peer-to-peer networks existed. It's divided up into tens of
> thousands of "newsgroups"--discussion areas arranged hierarchically and
> sporting names like sci.med.aids, rec.motorcycles, and comp.os.linux.admin.
> A handful are moderated; most are not. For efficiency's sake, recent posts
> to newsgroups are stored on the Usenet provider's server (as opposed to
> saved on a subscriber's computer as mailing lists are).
>
> Some newsgroups, like alt.binaries.pictures, are devoted to the distribution
> of binary files. Of particular relevance to the RIAA lawsuit is that there
> are around 652 newsgroups with the phrase "MP3" in their names. (For storage
> space reasons, not all Usenet providers offer binary newsgroups. Google's
> Web-based interface to Usenet doesn't, for instance.)
>
> The RIAA sued Usenet.com, which is based in Fargo, N.D., in the southern
> district of New York. The lawsuit claims Usenet.com encourages its customers
> to pay up to $19 a month by enticing them with copyrighted music, and asks
> for a permanent injunction barring the company from "aiding, encouraging,
> enabling, inducing, causing, materially contributing to, or otherwise
> facilitating" copyright infringement.
>
> There are some differences between Usenet.com and some of the other
> newsgroup providers that will help the RIAA. Usenet.com boasts that signing
> up for an account "gives you access to millions of MP3 files and also
> enables you to post your own files the same way and share them with the
> whole world."
>
> Clearly they didn't run that language by their lawyers first.
>
> So will the RIAA win? Thanks to improvident boasts like that, they stand a
> good chance. One reason the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Grokster is
> that the justices believed that StreamCast's executives had tried to lure
> pirates into using the Morpheus application. The justices also said that
> neither company filtered copyrighted material and "the business models
> employed by Grokster and StreamCast confirm that their principal object was
> use of their software to download copyrighted works."
>
> What the RIAA's doing here is a classic litigation strategy: sue someone who
> a judge is likely to say is a clear offender, and then invoke that decision
> when targeting someone who's a more marginal case. Usenet.com may be first,
> in other words, but newsgroup providers like AT&T, Verizon, and Stanford may
> well be next.
>
>

Those !@#$%^&*!@ copyright nazis!

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

In article <>,
says...
> > I agree with that, there shouldn't be a need to pass binaries in news
> > groups. At one time if the news group needed extra content you would
> > just run a web site for the extra parts.
>
> Why shouldn't there be a need?
>
> Just because you don't have the need, why can't someone else have it?
>
> If you don't want binaries or don't need binaries then don't go to binary
> groups. It's really simple.

My guess is that you didn't know about Usenet until after your first MS
PC, and MS was late getting into the Usenet world.

Usenet was setup to allow groups to share information on related topics.
In the early days you could not pass files (mime attachments), but when
it was updated to also work over SMTP it had to follow the email
standards which included attachments.

Since the time that people started posting attachments to replies/posts,
Usenet has suffered for it, causing some service providers to drop
Usenet access some to block it, others invest massive resources into
maintaining it, others have little retention, etc....

The only reason to share files via usenet is anonymity - meaning that
you can post as an unknown and share that file with the unknown masses.
This makes it a perfect means to pirate or distribute media that you
would not want to be associated with normally.

It's not as simple as avoiding the binary groups - idiots post files to
non-binary groups all the time, and if we did away with the entire
binary designation, in order to fight piracy, they would still post to
Usenet in some other group.

Almost 1TB per day is associated with binaries on busy servers.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(remove 999 for proper email address)

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:51:21 -0400, Leythos <> wrote:


>Since the time that people started posting attachments to replies/posts,
>Usenet has suffered for it, causing some service providers to drop
>Usenet access some to block it, others invest massive resources into
>maintaining it, others have little retention, etc....
>
>The only reason to share files via usenet is anonymity - meaning that
>you can post as an unknown and share that file with the unknown masses.
>This makes it a perfect means to pirate or distribute media that you
>would not want to be associated with normally.
>
>It's not as simple as avoiding the binary groups - idiots post files to
>non-binary groups all the time, and if we did away with the entire
>binary designation, in order to fight piracy, they would still post to
>Usenet in some other group.
>
>Almost 1TB per day is associated with binaries on busy servers.

When will you babbling idiots ever STFU? I mean to begin with you
NEVER know WHAT you're babbling about. You seem to have a distorted
view of newsgroups. Ask any ISP or third party provider that offers
access to premium news servers for a fee and they'll all tell you the
same thing. BINARIES by far makes up the vast majority of traffic,
some claim over 90% of what travels over Usenet, most of it porn
distributed in thousands of different newsgroups. So-called warez
group where pirated copies of software or simply copies of legit
software are posted complete with cracks, passwords and other keys
makes up a tiny fraction of traffic as does music posted to a handful
of newsgroups set up for that purpose.

As far as idiots, you seem to be a member in good standing of that
club. Usenet was formed with one purpose in mind. NO RULES. I know. I
was there from the beginning. Yet there are always bozos like you that
always attempt to impose and enforce rules you think would fit your
distorted view of what others may enjoy. For example posting binary
attachments to so-called non-binary groups. Since newsgroups by nature
have no rules and even if they did nobody could enforce them such
thinking is half-ass backwards. Over the 100,000+ newsgroups in
existence, a small handful, meaning in the dozens, are moderated. Only
those have "rules" that mean anything. Everywhere else, just some bozo
trying to enforce HIS idea of what should or shouldn't be posted.