RIAA sues Usenet

[Jenn]

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/10/riaa_usenet

RIAA Sues Usenet, Decries it as 'Brazen Outlaw'
By David Kravets 10.16.07 | 4:00 PM
The Recording Industry Association of America's litigation strategy is
taking a detour into the internet's Precambrian layer, suing a company
that distributes the ancient decentralized message board known as
Usenet.
Fargo, North Dakota-based Usenet.com is the target of the lawsuit
(.pdf) filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, in which 14 recording companies allege the service "enables and
encourages its customers to reproduce and distribute millions of
infringing copies of Plaintiff's valuable copyrighted sound
recordings."
The suit, filed Friday, is something of a throwback in the RIAA's
recent litigation strategy. It targets an alleged facilitator of
copyright theft instead of an individual pirate.
"They started by going after Napster, Aimster, Grokster, and after
that they said, 'We're gonna go after individuals to see if we (can)
get into the psyche of people that peer-to-peer file sharing is
wrong,'" says Washington, D.C.-based copyright attorney Ross
Dannenberg. "Now it has come full circle. Throughout this cycle,
(Usenet) newsgroups have been ignored."
In the past four years, the RIAA has sued more than 20,000 people on
allegations of copyright infringement. Two weeks ago, the association
won a $222,000 judgment in the first such case to go to trial.
But Usenet's decentralized architecture means RIAA gumshoes can't
easily trace uploaders, as they can on peer-to-peer services like
Kazaa. That may have prompted the RIAA to focus on feed provider
Usenet.com, which boasts about the anonymity it provides users.
"Shh ... quiet! We believe it's no one's business but your own what
you do on the internet or in Usenet! We don't log your activity. We
don't track your downloads," the company says on its website. It also
offers an encrypted tunneling service, for an additional fee, to
frustrate any efforts by ISPs or corporate network administrators to
police downloads.
The Usenet network is a global, distributed message-board network that
was created in the pre-internet days, when it relied on dialup modems
for distribution. Now it's carried over the internet. Usenet.com
redistributes the full Usenet feed for a subscription fee.
Usenet.com did not immediately return messages for comment.
Dannenberg suggests that the service could mount a defense by arguing
that it is a service provider under the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act, which would protect it from lawsuits if it responded to
individual copyright complaints.
"The defense is that you fall within the safe harbor provisions of the
DMCA," says Dannenberg. "This is material residing on a network at the
direction of the users." Dannenberg says Usenet.com could argue it
doesn't "have actual knowledge that the material is infringing, (and)
if they are notified, they remove infringing works."
RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth say that Usenet.com is no different
from the peer-to-peer sites the RIAA has litigated against in the
past.
"Usenet.com has promoted and advanced an illegal business model on the
backs of the music community," Duckworth said in a statement. "It may
be theft in a slightly different online form, but the illicit business
model of usenet.com is little different than the Groksters of the
world.... This business should not be allowed to remain a brazen outlaw
that actively shirks its legal obligations."

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Oct 17, 12:26 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/10/riaa_usenet
> >
> > RIAA Sues Usenet, Decries it as 'Brazen Outlaw'
> > By David Kravets 10.16.07 | 4:00 PM
> > The Recording Industry Association of America's litigation strategy is
> > taking a detour into the internet's Precambrian layer, suing a company
> > that distributes the ancient decentralized message board known as
> > Usenet.
> > Fargo, North Dakota-based Usenet.com is the target of the lawsuit
> > (.pdf) filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
> > York, in which 14 recording companies allege the service "enables and
> > encourages its customers to reproduce and distribute millions of
> > infringing copies of Plaintiff's valuable copyrighted sound
> > recordings."
>
> What a crock of crap. Why not sue creators of hard disk drives
> and Intel and AMD and every ISP .....?

I agree. People obviously do "share" copyrighted recordings via Usenet,
but it's not set up specifically for that purpose as Kazza (for example)
is.

>
> Anyway...check google ...they've time warped your first attempt
> to post this yesterday is a reply to your post today.
> It mind boggling that google could so screw up their groups apps.

I know. I posted the thing last night and it didn't show up for over an
hour. So I posted it again, and again it was a long time before it
showed up. I was thinking it might be a newsreader problem so I used
alt.test (just to make you proud of me!) and that worked fine. So
obviously Google was having another "burp". (Arny: this is your cue to
say, "Operator Error!")

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 17, 12:34 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 12:26 am, Jenn > wrote:
>
> >http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/10/riaa_usenet
>
> > RIAA Sues Usenet, Decries it as 'Brazen Outlaw'
> > By David Kravets 10.16.07 | 4:00 PM
> > The Recording Industry Association of America's litigation strategy is
> > taking a detour into the internet's Precambrian layer, suing a company
> > that distributes the ancient decentralized message board known as
> > Usenet.
> > Fargo, North Dakota-based Usenet.com is the target of the lawsuit
> > (.pdf) filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
> > York, in which 14 recording companies allege the service "enables and
> > encourages its customers to reproduce and distribute millions of
> > infringing copies of Plaintiff's valuable copyrighted sound
> > recordings."
>
> What a crock of crap. Why not sue creators of hard disk drives
> and Intel and AMD and every ISP .....?

Duh.

> Anyway...check google ...they've time warped your first attempt
> to post this yesterday is a reply to your post today.
> It mind boggling that google could so screw up their groups apps.

So leave. If you leave, I promise to miss you.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 17, 3:09 pm, Jenn > wrote:

> I agree. People obviously do "share" copyrighted recordings via Usenet,
> but it's not set up specifically for that purpose as Kazza (for example)
> is.

Just a guess, but if Usenet has not taken any steps to stop it, or if
they somehow encourage it, they can probably be held liable.

Personally, I think RIAA is trying to defend an obsolete business
model, but that's their call.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 17, 3:36 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 1:24 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

> > On Oct 17, 12:34 pm, ScottW > wrote:

> > > Anyway...check google ...they've time warped your first attempt
> > > to post this yesterday is a reply to your post today.
> > > It mind boggling that google could so screw up their groups apps.
>
> > So leave. If you leave, I promise to miss you.
>
> Lol. If people you don't like all left you...
> there'd be no one for you to post to.

What an odd thing to say.

The only thing I can figure is that your mental problems, or your very
limited processing capability, have clouded your vision.

Who here is in my "do not like" category? I even "like" you, 2pid. I
pity you, I think you are extremely ignorant, but dislike? That's far
more emotion than you're worth.

But I'll play your little game, 2pid. If there were any people here I
"didn't like" it would be you, Bratzi, and good old insane Arns. Since
the three of you are virtually interchangeable, I can see the source
of your confusion.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! > wrote:

> On Oct 17, 3:09 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > I agree. People obviously do "share" copyrighted recordings via Usenet,
> > but it's not set up specifically for that purpose as Kazza (for example)
> > is.
>
> Just a guess, but if Usenet has not taken any steps to stop it, or if
> they somehow encourage it, they can probably be held liable.

I don't see how they can be encouraging it. And based on their model,
I'm not even sure how they can discourage it.

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> On Oct 17, 12:26 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/10/riaa_usenet
> >
> > RIAA Sues Usenet, Decries it as 'Brazen Outlaw'
> > By David Kravets 10.16.07 | 4:00 PM
> > The Recording Industry Association of America's litigation strategy is
> > taking a detour into the internet's Precambrian layer, suing a company
> > that distributes the ancient decentralized message board known as
> > Usenet.
> > Fargo, North Dakota-based Usenet.com is the target of the lawsuit
> > (.pdf) filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
> > York, in which 14 recording companies allege the service "enables and
> > encourages its customers to reproduce and distribute millions of
> > infringing copies of Plaintiff's valuable copyrighted sound
> > recordings."
>
> What a crock of crap. Why not sue creators of hard disk drives
> and Intel and AMD and every ISP .....?

Give them time ......

Graham

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

> On Oct 17, 3:09 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > I agree. People obviously do "share" copyrighted recordings via Usenet,
> > but it's not set up specifically for that purpose as Kazza (for example)
> > is.
>
> Just a guess, but if Usenet has not taken any steps to stop it, or if
> they somehow encourage it, they can probably be held liable.

Usenet is not a prosecutable entity AFAIK !


> Personally, I think RIAA is trying to defend an obsolete business
> model, but that's their call.

Nah, they're trying to defend their overpaid lifestyles actually.

Graham

[Eeyore]

MiNe 109 wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
> > > Jenn > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree. People obviously do "share" copyrighted recordings via Usenet,
> > > > but it's not set up specifically for that purpose as Kazza (for example)
> > > > is.
> > >
> > > Just a guess, but if Usenet has not taken any steps to stop it, or if
> > > they somehow encourage it, they can probably be held liable.
> >
> > Usenet is not a prosecutable entity AFAIK !
>
> The lawsuit is against Usenet.com, a "Fargo, North Dakota newsgroup
> service" access provider.

Maybe the RIAA don't realise that company isn't Usenet.

Has any reason been given why they were singled out ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

MiNe 109 wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > Eeyore > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Usenet is not a prosecutable entity AFAIK !
> > >
> > > The lawsuit is against Usenet.com, a "Fargo, North Dakota newsgroup
> > > service" access provider.
> >
> > Maybe the RIAA don't realise that company isn't Usenet.
> >
> > Has any reason been given why they were singled out ?
>
> Speculation is they were marketing themselves as a way to find and
> download stuff.
>
> Maybe a cease-and-desist letter didn't result in all copyrighted
> material disappearing from binaries groups.

That would be a hard task in the first place. Given that news servers operate on
a peering basis how the heck are they supposed to keep it out ? It's not even as
if it's their own customers they'd need to deal with.

Graham

[Bill Riel]

In article >,
says...
>
> That would be a hard task in the first place. Given that news servers operate on
> a peering basis how the heck are they supposed to keep it out ? It's not even as
> if it's their own customers they'd need to deal with.

The only thing they could do would be to not carry binary groups. That
doesn't necessarily prevent sharing of binaries, but it would be a step
in that direction.

The problem is, I suspect that the availability of binary groups is a
big draw for many customers and they'd soon go out of business without
them.

--
Bill

[George M. Middius]

Bill Riel said:

> The problem is, I suspect that the availability of binary groups is a
> big draw for many customers and they'd soon go out of business without
> them.

I wonder why RAO's resident eckthpurt on porn hasn't weighed in on this
issue. Aside from the fact that he's being watched by the police, of
course.

[Eeyore]

Bill Riel wrote:

> says...
> >
> > That would be a hard task in the first place. Given that news servers operate on
> > a peering basis how the heck are they supposed to keep it out ? It's not even as
> > if it's their own customers they'd need to deal with.
>
> The only thing they could do would be to not carry binary groups. That
> doesn't necessarily prevent sharing of binaries, but it would be a step
> in that direction.
>
> The problem is, I suspect that the availability of binary groups is a
> big draw for many customers and they'd soon go out of business without
> them.

I fail to see how the RIAA can force them to completely stop carrying binaries quite
frankly.

Graham

[Jenn]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Bill Riel wrote:
>
> > says...
> > >
> > > That would be a hard task in the first place. Given that news servers
> > > operate on
> > > a peering basis how the heck are they supposed to keep it out ? It's not
> > > even as
> > > if it's their own customers they'd need to deal with.
> >
> > The only thing they could do would be to not carry binary groups. That
> > doesn't necessarily prevent sharing of binaries, but it would be a step
> > in that direction.
> >
> > The problem is, I suspect that the availability of binary groups is a
> > big draw for many customers and they'd soon go out of business without
> > them.
>
> I fail to see how the RIAA can force them to completely stop carrying
> binaries quite
> frankly.
>
> Graham

I agree. The peer-to-peer sites are specifically set up to and are
promoted for illegal activity. Usenet is not. Therefore the argument
will be made that the problem is with the users, not the service.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 17, 5:14 pm, ScottW > wrote:

> Me...I like a diversity of opinion. Gives us stuff to
> chat about.

Liar.

You post propaganda so that you can move your agenda forward. I've
never seen you involved in a true discussion. You only get involved
with 'discussions'.

To discuss a topic, one must first have the capacity for digesting
information and looking at it rationally. Therefore, you lose.

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> > Bill Riel wrote:
> > > says...
> > > >
> > > > That would be a hard task in the first place. Given that news servers
> > > > operate on a peering basis how the heck are they supposed to keep it out ?
> It's not
> > > > even as if it's their own customers they'd need to deal with.
> > >
> > > The only thing they could do would be to not carry binary groups. That
> > > doesn't necessarily prevent sharing of binaries, but it would be a step
> > > in that direction.
> > >
> > > The problem is, I suspect that the availability of binary groups is a
> > > big draw for many customers and they'd soon go out of business without
> > > them.
> >
> > I fail to see how the RIAA can force them to completely stop carrying
> > binaries quite frankly.
>
>
> I agree. The peer-to-peer sites are specifically set up to and are
> promoted for illegal activity. Usenet is not. Therefore the argument
> will be made that the problem is with the users, not the service.

All it needs is one really BIG fast news server sited in Russia to totally screw
the RIAA.

Graham

[Jenn]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > Bill Riel wrote:
> > > > says...
> > > > >
> > > > > That would be a hard task in the first place. Given that news servers
> > > > > operate on a peering basis how the heck are they supposed to keep it
> > > > > out ?
> > It's not
> > > > > even as if it's their own customers they'd need to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > The only thing they could do would be to not carry binary groups. That
> > > > doesn't necessarily prevent sharing of binaries, but it would be a step
> > > > in that direction.
> > > >
> > > > The problem is, I suspect that the availability of binary groups is a
> > > > big draw for many customers and they'd soon go out of business without
> > > > them.
> > >
> > > I fail to see how the RIAA can force them to completely stop carrying
> > > binaries quite frankly.
> >
> >
> > I agree. The peer-to-peer sites are specifically set up to and are
> > promoted for illegal activity. Usenet is not. Therefore the argument
> > will be made that the problem is with the users, not the service.
>
> All it needs is one really BIG fast news server sited in Russia to totally
> screw
> the RIAA.

But do we really want that?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Eeyore > wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>
>> > Eeyore > wrote:
>> > > Bill Riel wrote:
>> > > > says...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > That would be a hard task in the first place. Given that news
>> > > > > servers
>> > > > > operate on a peering basis how the heck are they supposed to keep
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > out ?
>> > It's not
>> > > > > even as if it's their own customers they'd need to deal with.
>> > > >
>> > > > The only thing they could do would be to not carry binary groups.
>> > > > That
>> > > > doesn't necessarily prevent sharing of binaries, but it would be a
>> > > > step
>> > > > in that direction.
>> > > >
>> > > > The problem is, I suspect that the availability of binary groups is
>> > > > a
>> > > > big draw for many customers and they'd soon go out of business
>> > > > without
>> > > > them.
>> > >
>> > > I fail to see how the RIAA can force them to completely stop carrying
>> > > binaries quite frankly.
>> >
>> >
>> > I agree. The peer-to-peer sites are specifically set up to and are
>> > promoted for illegal activity. Usenet is not. Therefore the argument
>> > will be made that the problem is with the users, not the service.
>>
>> All it needs is one really BIG fast news server sited in Russia to
>> totally
>> screw
>> the RIAA.
>
> But do we really want that?

Don't be silly Jenn. We already have several of them.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Eeyore > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >>
> >> > Eeyore > wrote:
> >> > > Bill Riel wrote:
> >> > > > says...
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > That would be a hard task in the first place. Given that news
> >> > > > > servers
> >> > > > > operate on a peering basis how the heck are they supposed to keep
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > out ?
> >> > It's not
> >> > > > > even as if it's their own customers they'd need to deal with.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The only thing they could do would be to not carry binary groups.
> >> > > > That
> >> > > > doesn't necessarily prevent sharing of binaries, but it would be a
> >> > > > step
> >> > > > in that direction.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The problem is, I suspect that the availability of binary groups is
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > big draw for many customers and they'd soon go out of business
> >> > > > without
> >> > > > them.
> >> > >
> >> > > I fail to see how the RIAA can force them to completely stop carrying
> >> > > binaries quite frankly.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I agree. The peer-to-peer sites are specifically set up to and are
> >> > promoted for illegal activity. Usenet is not. Therefore the argument
> >> > will be made that the problem is with the users, not the service.
> >>
> >> All it needs is one really BIG fast news server sited in Russia to
> >> totally
> >> screw
> >> the RIAA.
> >
> > But do we really want that?
>
> Don't be silly Jenn. We already have several of them.

Sorry, what I meant is do we want to "screw" the RIAA?

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > "Jenn" > wrote
> > > Eeyore > wrote:
> > >> Jenn wrote:
> > >> > Eeyore > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I fail to see how the RIAA can force them to completely stop carrying
> > >> > > binaries quite frankly.
> > >> >
> > >> > I agree. The peer-to-peer sites are specifically set up to and are
> > >> > promoted for illegal activity. Usenet is not. Therefore the argument
> > >> > will be made that the problem is with the users, not the service.
> > >>
> > >> All it needs is one really BIG fast news server sited in Russia to
> > >> totally screw the RIAA.
> > >
> > > But do we really want that?
> >
> > Don't be silly Jenn. We already have several of them.
>
> Sorry, what I meant is do we want to "screw" the RIAA?

Oh I see. I was going to say "don't care really" but after longer thought, yes I
think it would teach them a lesson. The last people the RIAA care about are the
artists and the public and the DRM enacted at their behest is an utter mess that
regularly stands in the way of one's legitimate use of music one has paid for.

Graham

[Jenn]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > "Jenn" > wrote
> > > > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > >> Jenn wrote:
> > > >> > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > I fail to see how the RIAA can force them to completely stop
> > > >> > > carrying
> > > >> > > binaries quite frankly.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I agree. The peer-to-peer sites are specifically set up to and are
> > > >> > promoted for illegal activity. Usenet is not. Therefore the
> > > >> > argument
> > > >> > will be made that the problem is with the users, not the service.
> > > >>
> > > >> All it needs is one really BIG fast news server sited in Russia to
> > > >> totally screw the RIAA.
> > > >
> > > > But do we really want that?
> > >
> > > Don't be silly Jenn. We already have several of them.
> >
> > Sorry, what I meant is do we want to "screw" the RIAA?
>
> Oh I see. I was going to say "don't care really" but after longer thought,
> yes I
> think it would teach them a lesson. The last people the RIAA care about are
> the
> artists

What is your evidence for that?

> and the public and the DRM enacted at their behest is an utter mess
> that
> regularly stands in the way of one's legitimate use of music one has paid
> for.

So to "teach them a lesson" you're willing to cheat artists (and others)
out of their due income?

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > > "Jenn" > wrote
> > > > > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > > >> Jenn wrote:
> > > > >> > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > I fail to see how the RIAA can force them to completely stop
> > > > >> > > carrying
> > > > >> > > binaries quite frankly.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I agree. The peer-to-peer sites are specifically set up to and are
> > > > >> > promoted for illegal activity. Usenet is not. Therefore the
> > > > >> > argument
> > > > >> > will be made that the problem is with the users, not the service.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> All it needs is one really BIG fast news server sited in Russia to
> > > > >> totally screw the RIAA.
> > > > >
> > > > > But do we really want that?
> > > >
> > > > Don't be silly Jenn. We already have several of them.
> > >
> > > Sorry, what I meant is do we want to "screw" the RIAA?
> >
> > Oh I see. I was going to say "don't care really" but after longer thought,
> > yes I think it would teach them a lesson. The last people the RIAA care about
> are
> > the artists
>
> What is your evidence for that?

Everything I've ever heard and read about the subject.


> > and the public and the DRM enacted at their behest is an utter mess
> > that regularly stands in the way of one's legitimate use of music one has paid
>
> > for.
>
> So to "teach them a lesson" you're willing to cheat artists (and others)
> out of their due income?

Do you have a better alternative ?

Many artists now recognise that a more liberal interpretation of music copyright
is needed.

Graham

[whosbest54[_2_]]

In article om>,
says...
>
>
>On Oct 18, 7:09 am, Eeyore >
>wrote:
>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> > Eeyore > wrote:
>> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
>> > > > Jenn > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > I agree. People obviously do "share" copyrighted recordings via
Usenet,
>> > > > > but it's not set up specifically for that purpose as Kazza (for
example)
>> > > > > is.
>>
>> > > > Just a guess, but if Usenet has not taken any steps to stop it, or if
>> > > > they somehow encourage it, they can probably be held liable.
>>
>> > > Usenet is not a prosecutable entity AFAIK !
>>
>> > The lawsuit is against Usenet.com, a "Fargo, North Dakota newsgroup
>> > service" access provider.
>>
>> Maybe the RIAA don't realise that company isn't Usenet.
>>
>> Has any reason been given why they were singled out ?
>
>Cuz their whole business model is around supporting
>binary downloading. Only reason anyone would pay for
>a usenet service....it sure isn't to read your posts :).
>It's actually kind of interesting how the porn industry has built
>a whole technology around file transfers via usenet.
>Splitting, encoding, recombining, crawling servers,
>background dowloading.
>
>Since these guys retain everything...they may well be compiling
>a database of movies and music in excess of what Kaaza has
>available at any given moment.
>
>>From their site...
>"While others claim to have huge download limits, we deliver unheard
>of download limits and incredible access to two huge geographically
>diverse server farms. But huge download limits are of no use if you
>can not get the material you are searching for. Our meticulously
>maintained and relentlessly upgraded servers offer superior retention
>and completion, ensuring more complete downloads and more articles so
>you will be able to find the material you need for longer periods of
>time."
>
>They also claim anonymity protection. I wouldn't be surprised if the
>courts find against 'em.
>Now that I understand the claim and who it's against. Their best
>defense is probably that they aren't doing anything anyone can't do
>from any usenet server (they just do it better) and much of their
>enabling software is freeware.
>
>ScottW
>
Exactly Scott. They are suing one pay provider based on how they present
themselves and the nature of the services on their web site, relying on
the Supreme Court p2p decision that says a service shown to be set up basically
for copywrite violations can be shut down. Here's what I posted to start a
thread in a.b.news-server-comparison:

=====

It was bound to happen sooner or later. This may have a big impact on
pay usenet providers that emphasize binary downloads located in the U.S.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-sues-usene.html

Worst outcome - push them out of business in the U.S.

Possible outcome - change the way they present themselves and the nature
of their services.

Likely defense - similar to what Google/Utube are using under the DMCA
for sites that host content not being responsible for what their users
do.

====

The discussion in that thread was interesting, for those of you who get that
group. Google doesn't carry it.

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://www.geocities.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://www.geocities.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

[Jenn]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > Jenn wrote:
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote
> > > > > > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > > > >> Jenn wrote:
> > > > > >> > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > I fail to see how the RIAA can force them to completely stop
> > > > > >> > > carrying
> > > > > >> > > binaries quite frankly.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I agree. The peer-to-peer sites are specifically set up to and
> > > > > >> > are
> > > > > >> > promoted for illegal activity. Usenet is not. Therefore the
> > > > > >> > argument
> > > > > >> > will be made that the problem is with the users, not the
> > > > > >> > service.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> All it needs is one really BIG fast news server sited in Russia to
> > > > > >> totally screw the RIAA.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But do we really want that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't be silly Jenn. We already have several of them.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, what I meant is do we want to "screw" the RIAA?
> > >
> > > Oh I see. I was going to say "don't care really" but after longer
> > > thought,
> > > yes I think it would teach them a lesson. The last people the RIAA care
> > > about
> > are
> > > the artists
> >
> > What is your evidence for that?
>
> Everything I've ever heard and read about the subject.

Well, that settles that!

>
>
> > > and the public and the DRM enacted at their behest is an utter mess
> > > that regularly stands in the way of one's legitimate use of music one has
> > > paid
> >
> > > for.
> >
> > So to "teach them a lesson" you're willing to cheat artists (and others)
> > out of their due income?
>
> Do you have a better alternative ?

Something that doesn't cheat people for their work. If you don't like a
particular type of DRM, vote with your dollars.

>
> Many artists now recognise that a more liberal interpretation of music
> copyright
> is needed.

Then it's up to those artists to do something about it.

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote
> >
> > Then it's up to those artists to do something about it.
>
> And they are. Direct marketing is happening.
> Copy protected songs are quickly dying on the download sites with the premium
> for unprotected songs removed.
>
> I see some still want $14 bucks an album for a downloaded song. If
> overpricing/overtaxing cigarettes is at fault for the black market in that
> commodity..then the music industry has to bear some responsibility for their
> own.
>
> Frankly, if the industry was given real scrutiny I think they'd be found in
> violation of antitrust laws. The evidence is the simple fact that profits are
> high for a substandard product and there seems to be no "low price" competition
> emerging.
> This seems very unlikely in a truly free market.

For once I've discovered a subject where I can wholeheartedly agree with you.

Graham

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> >
> > Then it's up to those artists to do something about it.
>
> And they are. Direct marketing is happening.
> Copy protected songs are quickly dying on the download sites with the premium
> for unprotected songs removed.

THen the system is working. The decision is being made by the
artists/those who own the rights to the product.

>
> I see some still want $14 bucks an album for a downloaded song. If
> overpricing/overtaxing cigarettes is at fault for the black market in that
> commodity..then the music industry has to bear some responsibility for their
> own.

I strongly disagree. I don't think it's ever the fault of those who own
something when it is stolen. I blame those who do the stealing.

>
> Frankly, if the industry was given real scrutiny I think they'd be found in
> violation of antitrust laws. The evidence is the simple fact that profits are
> high for a substandard product

A totally subjective judgement, of course.

> and there seems to be no "low price"
> competition
> emerging.

You just argued above that there is.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> net
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > Then it's up to those artists to do something about it.
> >>
> >> And they are. Direct marketing is happening.
> >> Copy protected songs are quickly dying on the download sites with the
> >> premium
> >> for unprotected songs removed.
> >
> > THen the system is working.
>
> This all depends on how you define system.

By "system" I mean those who own the product determining how it's
distributed. You are correct; this is happening more and more.

> The system developed and protected by the RIAA is
> dying. The larger system of the music industry and the
> marketplace seems to be slowing destroying the RIAA.

Because people are willing to steal product when it's easy enough to do.

>
> > The decision is being made by the
> > artists/those who own the rights to the product.
>
> Nonsense. It's being made by the consumers and the market.
> RIAA is trying desperately to save itself in the face of a changing
> marketplace due to many factors..technology being a big one.
> >
> >>
> >> I see some still want $14 bucks an album for a downloaded song. If
> >> overpricing/overtaxing cigarettes is at fault for the black market in that
> >> commodity..then the music industry has to bear some responsibility for
> >> their
> >> own.
> >
> > I strongly disagree. I don't think it's ever the fault of those who own
> > something when it is stolen. I blame those who do the stealing.
>
> You can say that...but regulatory groups find all the time against
> companies and consortiums and industry groups for unfair trade
> practices and illegal licensing practices.
> Often the series of lawsuits that find the owner in violation are started by
> the owner trying to enforce his "rights".

Do you disagree that those who own a thing should determine if it's
given away for free or not? What would happen to your industry if
people are allowed to steal your labor or product?

>
> >
> >>
> >> Frankly, if the industry was given real scrutiny I think they'd be found
> >> in
> >> violation of antitrust laws. The evidence is the simple fact that profits
> >> are
> >> high for a substandard product
> >
> > A totally subjective judgement, of course.
> >
> >> and there seems to be no "low price"
> >> competition
> >> emerging.
> >
> > You just argued above that there is.
>
> How long did that take? Does the RIAA support it?
> You argue "the system" works but it is "the system" that is
> slowly dismantling the RIAA.

And you think this would be a good thing in the long run?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 21, 1:05 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message

> >> > I strongly disagree. I don't think it's ever the fault of those who own
> >> > something when it is stolen. I blame those who do the stealing.
>
> >> You can say that...but regulatory groups find all the time against
> >> companies and consortiums and industry groups for unfair trade
> >> practices and illegal licensing practices.
> >> Often the series of lawsuits that find the owner in violation are started by
> >> the owner trying to enforce his "rights".
>
> > Do you disagree that those who own a thing should determine if it's
> > given away for free or not?
>
> To simplistic....when "or not" is too expensive then theft is often
> ok'd by law. Happens in intellectual property all the time.
> Is copyrighted art all that different?

So you apparently 'think' counterfeiting money is an acceptable
practice for those having a tough time earning money legally, as is
robbery. "IMO, music is too expensive. Therefore, theft is an
acceptable alternative."

Situational ethics noted.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 21, 1:45 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...

> > On Oct 21, 1:05 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> >> >> > I strongly disagree. I don't think it's ever the fault of those who own
> >> >> > something when it is stolen. I blame those who do the stealing.
>
> >> >> You can say that...but regulatory groups find all the time against
> >> >> companies and consortiums and industry groups for unfair trade
> >> >> practices and illegal licensing practices.
> >> >> Often the series of lawsuits that find the owner in violation are started
> >> >> by
> >> >> the owner trying to enforce his "rights".
>
> >> > Do you disagree that those who own a thing should determine if it's
> >> > given away for free or not?
>
> >> To simplistic....when "or not" is too expensive then theft is often
> >> ok'd by law. Happens in intellectual property all the time.
> >> Is copyrighted art all that different?
>
> > So you apparently 'think' counterfeiting money is an acceptable
> > practice for those having a tough time earning money legally, as is
> > robbery.
>
> Nope...courts have addressed that many times.
>
> > "IMO, music is too expensive. Therefore, theft is an
> > acceptable alternative."
>
> Is it theft...or copyright violation?

If you download pirated music wothout paying the royalty, it is theft.
If you copy and distribute that material, it is copyright
infringement.

Was this supposed to be a trick question?

> Are the penalties criminal or civil?

Criminal.

> > Situational ethics noted.
>
> I have not advocated copyright violation.

Why am I thinking of Richard Nixon right now?

> On the other hand, I don't know anyone who isn't guilty.

So that makes it 'right'.

<Hm. How do I say this without using "big words"? LOL!>

So what is 'ethical' to you changes, depending on how you feel about
something at a given moment. Further, if many people break a law, that
makes it "OK".

> No one has ever given you a tape or CDR?

Sure they have. I accepted a CDR that violated copyright and included
material that may have been stolen. It was wrong of me to do so.

> No...I guess it doesn't surprise me you have no friends.

The fact that they have, and that I accepted them, does not make it
"right".

> If postings on You-tube are in violation of copyright laws
> is Jenn's linking to them in violation?

I am not a lawyer. The link is a secondary consideration.

> How about soliciting links to you tube videos?

The first question would be, "Is posting copyrighted material on
YouTube without permission a criminal violation of law?"

For you, I guess that depends on which way the wind is blowing.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 22, 7:09 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> No..it makes me honest..something you're not.

Yes, admitting that you've done something wrong *is* dishonest.

It probably makes me a "pinko."

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 22, 11:54 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 22, 7:09 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> No..it makes me honest..something you're not.
>
> > Yes, admitting that you've done something wrong *is* dishonest.
>
> Honest in the context of this discussion...which is something you're not.

Sure it is. I broke the law. That isn't right. It is, in fact,
illegal. I admitted it.

> > It probably makes me a "pinko."
>
> Nah...you've other ways to prove that.

Speaking of moral relativism, how are you this evening?

[Clyde Slick]

On 23 Oct, 03:33, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> wrote:

>
> Speaking of moral relativism, how are you this evening?

relatively moral