this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
302 points (98.4% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54698 readers
524 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thanks for elaborating!
If you don't mind I have a follow up question. Why would a usenet provider protect users who clearly store illegal files on their servers, when ISPs are easily ratting out their customers?
It's less about protecting them, and more not pushing away your customers. Very little activity on usenet isn't file sharing now a days and few of those files are above bar... But they'll take on that risk for you, for a little bit of your money. It's part of the business model.
Again copyright holders aren't generally interested in those downloading content, but those hosting the content to be downloaded. With usenet you are shifting that hosting away from you, and paying for that security of it being someone elses problem. If a usenet host gets taken down/raided, it's very very unlikely the authorities would then go after everyone on the customer list; that's neither practical nor worthwhile, especially as it typically crosses international borders amd very little info is stored about usenet customers. They'll just move on to targeting the next host.
With torrents, you are the host. You're broadcasting to trackers what content you have and the fact that you want someone to download it from you, painting a big target on your back.
Usenet also provides a little bit of reasonable doubt as the host isn't the one posting data to the service, and the files posted to usenet are broken into many parts and compressed individually. Without the index file (which isn't posted to usenet) to re-combine the parts in the right order and see the whole thing, it's not clear at all that it's illegal or copyrighted content to be able to take action on it. Maybe it was a rip of the new Guardians movie, maybe it's just a cat picture 🤷. This heavily delays the takedown process and allows the host to say they were reasonably unaware of the content, dodging responsibility/consequences.
That was a good write up
But isn't this kinda like the one click hosters like Rapidshare or Megaupload? Those services (at least the big ones I think) have been taken down for copyright infringement although they had the benefit of the doubt because data was stored fragmented and encrypted. Or am I not seeing something important?
From what I understand Usenet is a more distributed system, with usenet servers sharing vast amounts of data between each other. Many of those servers are not located in the US, so prosecution becomes difficult without international cooperation.
It's also a system that's been around since 1980 and hasn't been taken down yet. I'm sure individuals providers have overtime, but usenet as a whole chugs on with data exceeding 20 years old depending on the retention of your particular provider, usually 5000-8000days.
What's the advantage over a seedbox for example?
The provider of your seedbox may or may not tolerate copyright notices due to your activities and cut you off. Some are really really short tempered.
Usenet providers are much less likely to cut you off as they are well aware of and supporting the use case here.
I've also found more content available with usenet than torrenting (I only used public trackers/indexers though), and I'm constantly running into limits with how quickly I can write data to disk/ssd vs waiting on slow af torrents to finally finish a week later.