RIAA tries to pull plug on Usenet. Seriously

[stiltman]

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9798715-38.html?tag=nefd.pulse

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.) continued...

[Marvingj]

Here we go again...1939 tactics WW2

[lordsmurf]

Let's sue the entire Internet next. It's really the root of all evil, right?

[JimJohnD]

I guess I had better watch which songs I humm/whistle as I walk down the street. I could get sued for public performance.

[Steve Stepoway]

I guess I had better watch which songs I humm/whistle as I walk down the street. I could get sued for public performance.

The copyright holders of "Happy Birthday" are notorious for wanting to be paid. I'm quite serious.

Steve

[Bullworth]

I believe you. The Boy Scouts were told years ago they would have to pay if they wanted to continue singing certain songs. This whole copyright thing has just become a token law to allow corporations to sue indiscriminately. What's next

[SCDVD]

I want to be very careful to not sound like I support any of this copyright insanity but there is an element of copyright law that requires the copyright holder to demonstrate diligence in protecting the copyright. If they aren't diligent, the copyright can be deemed neglected and therefore invalid. How this all works when it gets down to cases, I don't know.

[jagabo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm

A car repair firm has been taken to court accused of infringing musical copyright because its employees listen to radios at work.

[gll99]

To me, they are almonds, macadamias, pecans and pistachios.

[Video Head]

This was tried before.

The US military set out to design a communications system that could not be defeated, even by the USSR's nuclear weapons. It was designed so that if you wiped out one section, another would take over. It became ARPAnet and then UseNet. University Prof's originally used it to play chess - funny how the internet's main hubs are all Universities, isn't it? Sun Microsystems, Cisco Systems and the router all derived from the original experiment. When HTTP was developed it changed everything, and suddenly any 14 year old with a connected computer was a "wiz" on the intergeek, downloading scripts and DDOS'n.

The RIAA would have to sue the internet and get it shut down for this to work. As a general rule, ISP's are not responsible for the content on their servers. And if you shut down one, twenty more show up. It is the nature of the beast, as it was originally designed to be. When NNTP was developed, and released into the wild, the course was set...it is as difficult as stopping impaired driving or terrorist suicide attacks. Many well organized, funded and managed groups put huge resources into stopping it and make inroads...but they can't stop it.

NNTP has functioned all these years, in obscurity, because you cannot shut it down.

It is complex, technical and not for the average web surfer, but it now has attracted the attention of groups who would like to see it's demise due to ill placed and illogical reasons. Many highly placed technical individuals use UseNet daily for legal and legitimate uses and would not tollerate it being deemed the equivilant of a PtP file sharing network.

VH

[SmokieStover]

Let's sue the entire Internet next. It's really the root of all evil, right?

Yes Sir.......the spawn of Al Gore.

[stiltman]

The RIAA would have to sue the internet and get it shut down for this to work. As a general rule, ISP's are not responsible for the content on their servers. And if you shut down one, twenty more show up. It is the nature of the beast, as it was originally designed to be. When NNTP was developed, and released into the wild, the course was set...it is as difficult as stopping impaired driving or terrorist suicide attacks. Many well organized, funded and managed groups put huge resources into stopping it and make inroads...but they can't stop it.

Nope, they will just force all NNTP servers to purge the binary hierarchy. Just like Google chose to do after they bought out DejaVu(it was DejaVu right?)

[Video Head]

Then rec.nothinghere.goaway would be gone as well?

[satviewer2000]

But you don't need a "binary" group to hold binary info. Any USENET group can be used to hold binary info, as it's just all data anyways. On top of that, anyone can create new usenet groups at any time, so you take down alt.bin.etc and by the next day, someone can create alt.bin.etc2 and so on. Furthermore, most of these servers are not even USA based, they are distributed worldwide on thousands and thousands of servers. It's like trying to cut the legs off a starfish, another will just grow out.

[primus_fan2001]

Let's sue the entire Internet next. It's really the root of all evil, right?

Yes Sir.......the spawn of Al Gore.

On that note, why don't they just sue Al Gore? He's the true root of evil in all this anyways...

[thecoalman]

On that note, why don't they just sue Al Gore? He's the true root of evil in all this anyways...

Blasphemy! Sue the inventor of the internet. :P

[stiltman]

But you don't need a "binary" group to hold binary info. Any USENET group can be used to hold binary info, as it's just all data anyways. On top of that, anyone can create new usenet groups at any time, so you take down alt.bin.etc and by the next day, someone can create alt.bin.etc2 and so on. Furthermore, most of these servers are not even USA based, they are distributed worldwide on thousands and thousands of servers. It's like trying to cut the legs off a starfish, another will just grow out.

It's not quite that easy. Most NNTP servers are not adding new binary groups. And most NNTP servers will not let you post attachments in non binary groups. Yes you can do it inline, but that would soon become a mess.

Now a days you have to petition a NNTP server to carry a new binary group. Sure you can find a rouge server to do it, but that doesn't mean the big boys will carry them. I look for the rouge servers to multiply if the big boys are forced to purge the binaries.

[Midzuki]

< /ROT-13 >
Pbafvqrevat gung va zbfg pnfrf vafnavgl naq/be
fpbhaqeryubbq fvzcyl pnaabg or svkrq,
< /ROT-13 >

< HEX >
49B464206265206D6F73742068617070
7920696620657665727920706F6C6974
696369616E2077686F206C696B657320
746F0D0A636F636B7375636B20746865
2062696720636F72706F726174696F6E
73207374617274656420726563656976
696E670D0A534552494F555320646561
746820746872656174732E
< /HEX >

[dphirschler]

I want to be very careful to not sound like I support any of this copyright insanity but there is an element of copyright law that requires the copyright holder to demonstrate diligence in protecting the copyright. If they aren't diligent, the copyright can be deemed neglected and therefore invalid. How this all works when it gets down to cases, I don't know.

I believe you are referring to trademark protection. I don't think that same rule applies to copyright protection. But I could be wrong.


Darryl

[oldandinthe way]

There is no requirement to defend copyright in order to maintain one's rights. One can sue on the eve of expiration if one chooses to.

The RIAA's motivation is suppression of unauthorized copies, plain and simple.

The record industry is in desperate shape - they can't afford to pay their drug dealers.

Usenet is obviously a threat, even if you are willing to pay for a download of the only song you like on a CD, knowing the rest of the CD is available for free on Usenet might encourage you to download the other songs which you will never listen to.

With 30 day retention on most news servers and a maximum of 200 days anywhere else success in suppressing Usenet will have a piddling effect on the record companies' bottom lines. Even if all the binary newsgroups disappear.

If you want access to 200 days the cost of a premium Usenet provider doesn't look very diffferent from the cost of a licensed unlimited download service like Rhapsody. And I wonder just how many premium Usenet Subscribers there are.

The unlimited download services are the real mechanism for the record industry to avoid massive piracy. Price them well, make them easy to search and use (Usenet is full of mispelling, cryptic titles to avoid the RIAA etc etc), fast and reliable.

However the bottom line will still suck if no one wants to hear the crappy new releases.

[dphirschler]

< /ROT-13 >
Pbafvqrevat gung va zbfg pnfrf vafnavgl naq/be
fpbhaqeryubbq fvzcyl pnaabg or svkrq,
< /ROT-13 >

< HEX >
49B464206265206D6F73742068617070
7920696620657665727920706F6C6974
696369616E2077686F206C696B657320
746F0D0A636F636B7375636B20746865
2062696720636F72706F726174696F6E
73207374617274656420726563656976
696E670D0A534552494F555320646561
746820746872656174732E
< /HEX >

Death threats? That's a bit overboard, don't you think?


Darryl

[Midzuki]

Are you one of those politicians I was talking about?

=================================

[WishMaker]

I wonder if "they" know there can be positive outcomes to downloads. I happened upon a tv show one night, that seemed really interesting, but since it was near the end of its third season, I was going to write it off as a tv show I'd never catch up on. My Son downloads some, so I asked him to download the first season. I watched these over a few days and became totally hooked. I bought the first and second season DVD's and he downloaded the episodes from the third season. The show began its fourth season and I've been watching religiously. (I plan on buying the third season too.)

Also, my friend called while I was watching the show and said she would be watching it too, but she had missed too much. I let her borrow my DVD's to catch up and now she AND her neighbor is watching the show. Basically the same thing when I heard a song on youtube from a group that's not in the mainstream. I went out and bought the CD as I have with a few other ones. I'm just saying downloading is not all bad. And now that I know I can catch up, there are a few other shows I'm thinking about doing the same thing with.

PS: My Son rarely sits down to watch a show, but after basically the same thing happened to him with TWO shows, he now watches the shows he likes, because he got caught up and interested.

[thecoalman]

I wonder if "they" know there can be positive outcomes to downloads. I happened upon a tv show one night, that seemed really interesting, but since it was near the end of its third season, I was going to write it off as a tv show I'd never catch up on. My Son downloads some, so I asked him to download the first season....

Half the trouble is they rather fight technology than embrace it. The recent release of Radioheads album at the unheard of cost of "what you think its worth" has proved all the propaganda the MPAA and RIAA proliferate about the evils of giving consumers a product at reasonable price wrong. The articles I have read pegged the average "donation" per album between $5 and $8 for grand total of between six and ten million. Even at $5 without all the added expenses such as creation, distribution and most importantly the middle man the band has made a mint because all of that profit went into their pockets.

The movie industry is going down the same road the music industry has traveled the last couple of years. If anything you would think they would have taken notice and decided not to take that path.

[TJK1911]

There is no requirement to defend copyright in order to maintain one's rights. One can sue on the eve of expiration if one chooses to.

The RIAA's motivation is suppression of unauthorized copies, plain and simple.

Seems to me that the obvious solution is for the RIAA to sue themselves, for carelessly releasing the music and making it available to be copied. If they hadn't released it in the first place they wouldn't be in this fix.

Problem solved.

[MikieV]

The RIAA would have to sue the internet and get it shut down for this to work.

I doubt they expect to eliminate Usenet globally. They probably just want to intimidate the larger, US-based providers.

As a general rule, ISP's are not responsible for the content on their servers.

But, in this case, they can't claim ignorance of what is merely "in transit" on their networks. They all brag in their marketing about how they are archiving it on their servers...

e.g.

NewsDemon claims 110-day retention of binary files

Usenet.net claims 100-day retention of binary files

Giganews claims 200-day retention of binary files

Usenet.com claims 150-day retention of binary files.

I assume the RIAA is particularly targeting Usenet.com due to their free, SSL-encryption with every account, and their offering "Secure Tunnel" :

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 track user activity.

Napster and other file-trading systems got sued. Google is being sued about content on YouTube...

Bit Torrent sites are being sued just for providing links to content, and complain that Google isn't being sued while providing a similar function...

NNTP has functioned all these years, in obscurity, because you cannot shut it down.

It also became obscured by the double-whammy of rampant spam, and the shift to P2P file-sharing.

But it appears the RIAA has finally figured out that their crusade against P2P is driving some people back to usenet.

Comcast getting press for "throttling" P2P traffic is also causing FUD about the future of file-sharing.

[satviewer2000]

Hey, they forgot all about the IRC channels!

[jman98]

It's a nuisance lawsuit, but as we Americans all know, anytime anything gets to court, anything can happen. This will go before a judge as Usenet won't rish having 12 morons who can't send email decide it in a jury trial. As someone who has served on a jury in the USA in the not too distant past, let me assure you all of how technologically ignorant most Americans are, so there is no chance a jury will get this. Anything can happen with a judge. Some judges might decide that Usenet must monitor all submissions. Another might find that "safe harbor" rules apply and to date it generally has been found in US courts that service providers are not responsible for what users do with their service. Even if the RIAA somehow prevails, US courts have no jurisdiction over foreign Usenet providers and the jurisdiction of any court that hears this case would be local, not nationwide, so at worst Americans could simply sign up for some foreign Usenet provider and continue to get what they want. No court would have the jurisdiction to implement some sort of nationwide filtering of Usenet. They might hold usenet.com responsible, maybe, but any ruling would only apply to them. Basically, this is just a spin of the roulette wheel - "maybe we'll get lucky and get a sympathetic judge" kind of thing, but the fact that they would even try this show how delusional they are in thinking that they can honestly stop Usenet.

[MikieV]

Basically, this is just a spin of the roulette wheel - "maybe we'll get lucky and get a sympathetic judge" kind of thing, but the fact that they would even try this show how delusional they are in thinking that they can honestly stop Usenet.

I agree they are "spinning the roulette wheel", but I'm not so sure they are being delusional.

It would be delusional if they think they can "stop" Usenet, but not delusional if they are just trying to ham-string the big players in the US market. They just need to make it "not worth the hassle" for some US-based providers, and thereby limit access by US consumers.

The pattern is clearly established: once they get a ruling from a sympathetic judge, it will give their threats of litigation against other providers more legitimacy...

I do agree that any US-based disruption of binary distribution will not stop people from getting the same files from overseas servers. Even if they have to use proxy servers to do it.

There is no doubt in my mind that my Comcast overlords would terminate my "free" 2Gb/month access to Giganews in a heartbeat if the RIAA ever sent a cease & desist letter.

[Video Head]

"But, in this case, they can't claim ignorance of what is merely "in transit" on their networks. They all brag in their marketing about how they are archiving it on their servers... "

Archive??? Since when does Usenet archive? Usenet does not preserve nor does it collect. Usenet is a global transit system for the posting of relevant articles. The articles are only available to readers for as long as their Usenet provider retains them on their servers...this is called retention. Some Usenet providers may provide 24 hours of retention while others might provide 24 days. Obviously, 24 days of retention provides much more flexibility in a readers schedule in comparison to 24 hours. That is why Usenet providers advertise their retention. It is comparable to a TV station showing news at 5pm and 11pm. It provides the viewer with more flexibility in their viewing schedule over a rival station that only shows news at 5pm.

I do not see how a Usenet provider advertising retention is seen as bragging about what is in transit on a server. It in no way indicates what is posted in alt.binaries.food or alt.binaries.fluffy-pillows.

VH