Usenet Provider Ordered To Wave Magic Wand And Make Infringing Content Disappear

from the how? dept

Fri, Sep 30th 2011 6:29pm — Mike Masnick

We've seen a few other cases like this and never can understand how a court thinks it's reasonable for a third party service provider to know how to block its system from being used for infringement, but that's exactly what's happened in the Court of Amsterdam. Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN has apparently won a lawsuit against Usenet provider News-Service.com (NSE). The court has ordered NSE to magically make all infringing works available via Usenet disappear. Of course, if you understood how third party systems work, you would know that the only way to do that is to no longer be an open platform, which takes away all the value of such a service. NSE responded pretty much as you would expected -- in shock about the impossibility of the order:

We are very disappointed with the Court�s verdict. It is technically as well as economically unfeasible to check the contents of the 15 to 20 million messages that are exchanged on a daily basis. Added to which, there is no automated way of checking whether Usenet messages contain copyrighted material or whether permission has been obtained for the distribution of such material.

It's kind of amazing that a court of law can't understand how the internet works. For its part, BREIN claims that this is "a breakthrough step." Yeah, taking down major communication platforms because the organizations you represent refuse to adapt. That's a "breakthrough"?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, netherlands, third party liability, usenet
Companies: brein, news-service.com

90 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Spaceboy (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 6:30pm

In before Friday night Troll...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 30 Sep 2011 @ 6:58pm

"It's kind of amazing that a court of law can't understand how the internet works."

It is amazing that so many people do not understand how anything works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
monkyyy, 30 Sep 2011 @ 6:59pm

include
include

int fairy_lawyers_appove{
return (magic("copyright")*lawyer(nonsence)*bribed_jugdes(true))*0;
}

int main(void){
if(fairy_lawyers_appove())
return 1;
else return 0;
}

"there is no automated way of checking whether Usenet messages contain copyrighted material"
pls that was easy to write to automate the copyright infringement detection
[ link to this | view in thread ]
monkyyy, 30 Sep 2011 @ 7:02pm

Re:
so everything between greater/lessthen signs get removed?

include magic
include fairy_lawyers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 7:06pm

This & PROTECT IP & ACTA! Pretty soon the Internet will be turned into essentially television! Oh happy day, how Pirate Mike and his hairy band of Freetards are finally being touched by the long arm of the law!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 7:16pm

Re:
Mike, show us where the law touched you using this doll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 7:17pm

Re:
I'm sure somewhere in that rat maze of a brain you believe this is a good thing. But have you ever heard of the law of unintended consequences? Because people like you seem completely blind to this very basic fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 7:21pm

Re: Re:
Are you sure you're not responding to a poe?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 7:29pm

Re:
Meanwhile, you anxiously wait for that day when you are finally touched by a woman (mom doesn't count).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aaron *Head* Moss (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 7:30pm

Re: Re:
I think you need to show us where Mike touched you Anon. Or do you think that the court was right in this case?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 7:43pm

lolol there goes MIKE HITLER again who is LITERALLY hitler

mike why do you continue to be a savage, terrible dictator and put your readers into FUDCENTRATION CAMPS?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 7:50pm

Re: Re: Re:
Court is wrong, it isn't easy to figure out what is or isn't infringing on a site with fluid sharing unless your site sucks and almost no one uses it.

And mike touched me in ways that would make a porn star blush.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 8:06pm

Re: Re:
Paging Dr. Freud, please report to the usenet thread on techdirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 8:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
He goatsed you?

OMG!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 8:26pm

Re: Re: Re:
Dr. Freud can't help you son.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 8:26pm

Re:
Your trolling is weak.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 8:31pm

oh mikey
Again with the infringing content outcry. And complaining "it's too hard" to deal with. Is it really? Any competent IT person could easily identify all those huge posts of data, that are 99.9% infringing content. Easy solution is just to cap the size, doesn't take a magic wand, just half a brain which you don't have. Usenet shouldn't be a place for big files anyways, it's just an ancient way of pirating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 8:32pm

Re: Re: Re:
And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted � nevermore!
�Edgar Allan Poe
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 8:42pm

Re: oh mikey
That's right, Usenet has NO use outside of ANCIENT ways of pirating.

Can't wait until we get that ruling that applies the same logic to all of the internet outside of Facebook.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 8:45pm

Re: oh mikey
Identifying "huge posts of data" is not the same as identifying "infringing content", you do know that there are free legal videos, text and audio don't you?

Here is a 200GB download that can be copied, used and modified at will by anyone.
http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/index.php/download/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 8:52pm

Re: oh mikey
Here is another movie.
http://orange.blender.org/

Lots of audio that can be freely distributed.
http://www.jamendo.com/en/

Public Domain movies that can be legally distributed.
http://www.openflix.com/

A lot of freesounds that can be freely distributed.
http://www.freesound.org/

Open clipart.
http://www.openclipart.org/

Open audio books
http://librivox.org/

Why do you hate liberty and freedom?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 8:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike's a very giving lover.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:04pm

Re: oh mikey
What you call "competent IT person" I would call it "extremely incompetent IT person"

This is what happens when incompetent IT personnel do try to do anything without understanding their own traffic.
http://torrentfreak.com/talktalks-p2p-throttling-kills-onlive-games-110929/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:09pm

Re: Re:
But have you ever heard of the law of unintended consequences?

What's the unintended consequence here? They want Usenet shut down. At least the binary portion of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:10pm

Re: oh mikey
Yes yes, we know you hate the internet and want to see it gone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:23pm

Re: oh mikey
> easily identify all those huge posts of data, that are 99.9%
> infringing content

Actually, it's not. There are hundreds of binary groups where photographers share and comment on each other's work. Same with the video groups. And the literary groups.

But I'm sure you know that. Otherwise you'd be commenting from a place of ignorance.

So which is it?

> Usenet shouldn't be a place for big files anyways

Says who?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:27pm

Re: Re: oh mikey
Wow, I thought that was a typo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:31pm

Re: Re: oh mikey
Also, capping size would not stop illegal sharing of texts images ect.

At least not without removing the usefulness of the service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:33pm

Re: Re: Re: oh mikey
Entire Studio backup (over 200 GB)

* http://blender-mirror.kino3d.org/peach/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:37pm

Re: Re: Re: oh mikey
I thought it was already capped, why do they keep dividing the binaries into hundreds of little small pieces?

People still use those CRC files to reconstruct the missing pieces?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:45pm

This is the pirate version of "too big to fail", the same bullshit being pulled by YouTube and the like.

"there is too much, so we can't check, so when in doubt, we just let it go".

Is this the true Masnick's Law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:04pm

Re:
Masnick's Law? Pft, plenty of prior art. Prohibition in the 20th Century, Christianity trying to stamp out pagan religions and folklore...

Who do you think's going to give in first? The millions of people who know that the entire population can't be policed, or the few dozen governments trying to do the policing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:23pm

Re:
Yeah, 18 TB/day uploaded is a piece of cake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 11:25pm

Re: oh mikey
Don't you see the idiocy of your suggestion there, of capping file sizes?
What if, in the future, we super Super-Duper-HD, where an hour long video is 10TB? And I film...say...a family holiday? So because of some arbitrary rule of copyright, technology now has to be hindered. I am now no longer able to communicate my video to my family and friends.
"Sorry guys, would love to share my holiday video with ya. But some fool twenty years ago said that if I'm sharing a big file like this, then I must be guilty of copyright infringement".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 11:27pm

Re: Re: oh mikey
Oh wait...we've already arrived at that stage. If I want to record my gaming sessions, its fine if I use low resolution connectors, but if I actually want to use the full 1080p? Why, that's heresy! Burn me at the stake as a witch! I can't record using HDMI!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 1 Oct 2011 @ 12:07am

Re:
De Nile, not just a Jamaican's way of saying the river in Egypt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aerilus, 1 Oct 2011 @ 1:20am

Re:
ya you get to writing that a couple million times over for every copyrighted song and movie or picture or piece of software let me know when you are done cause then you hav eto figure out weather each use of the million or so titles is one actually referring to the copyrighted work for example the movie Drive that just came out how the hell are you going to figure out weather a posting is talking about the movie or any form of activity that includes driving a car. once you have that algorithm written let me know you will have probably be verging pretty close to AI at that point and will probably have received an advanced degree and have a job at google but still shoot me an email. because you then need to figure out how to analyze the actual download to make sure that it is what it describes and no one has changed the name to beat the filter. you are also going to need a take-down system that processes dmca request a few full time people to work in that department, so you have pretty much turned a system that could be set up by anyone with some technological know how into a bog of filtering censorship and business management, and legal counsel. how fun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aerilus, 1 Oct 2011 @ 1:21am

Re: Re:
you know what screw it that is just to much work we need to shut down the internet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aerilus, 1 Oct 2011 @ 1:25am

Re: Re: Re:
Usenet is the foundation of the internet, hell if I remember correctly it was there before what (we consider) the internet was. lets just shut that forum for debate and communication down that has no larger implications.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 1:35am

Re:
I think it's actually called "Common Sense." Try it some time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WysiWyg (profile), 1 Oct 2011 @ 1:39am

Re: Re:
Whoa, what a wall!

You're not a programmer are you? I think the idea was that the function would always return 0, which means that everything would come back as "infringing" (or rather "not appoved" (sic)). ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 3:05am

One more money waster by BREIN
And to all you BREIN shills, I invite you to a special party we're having at in your honer at ba. Its called the "Epic Fail of BREIN and Friends"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
non-moron Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 3:28am

Re: oh mikey
So a capped size magically lets through the movie I made that I want to make freely available?

Does the capped size magically let through the large program that I made that I want to make freely available?

Seems like your idea of a capped size does not magically solve anything but it does create new problems.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 4:03am

Re:
Goverment bailouts and trying to enforce copyright on a mass scale aren't even a remote analog.

Less apples and oranges and more apples and latin dance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Oct 2011 @ 4:07am

Re: Re: oh mikey
You can post videos on Facebook... by their logic, that means it's an infringer as well!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 5:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
mike touched me in ways that would make a porn star blush.

& i bet you enjoyed every minute of it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 1 Oct 2011 @ 6:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Arpanet was the beginning of the internet years before Usenet came around. It seems like you mean the world wide web when you refer to "what (we consider) the internet was."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 1 Oct 2011 @ 6:26am

It,s easy! The only way to ensure no copyrighted content is uploaded to the internet is to turn over control of the internet to our benevolent corporate overlords.

Your free speech is a threat to my copyrights, you pirate mike feetard sycophantic fudmonster poohead!

/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 8:01am

Re: oh mikey
Again with the infringing content outcry. And complaining "it's too hard" to deal with. Is it really? Any competent IT person could easily identify all those huge posts of data, that are 99.9% infringing content. Easy solution is just to cap the size, doesn't take a magic wand, just half a brain which you don't have. Usenet shouldn't be a place for big files anyways, it's just an ancient way of pirating.

It's just more pirate apology FUD from Pirate Mike. Of course it's easy to tell. The top groups of Usenet are binaries, and about 99% of those files are infringing. Close down the binaries--court order complied with. That's probably what they'll end up doing. It's not difficult at all.

Pirate Mike just doesn't like the reality, and he'll fight out against anyone who dare do a thing to stop piracy. He'll pretend something is impossible when it's really easy, or vice versa--whatever it takes to defend piracy.

But "piracy is not OK," right, chubby?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Oct 2011 @ 8:29am

Re: Re: oh mikey
Ah, more abject idiocy from our favourite tosser.

"Of course it's easy to tell."

Really? I have uploaded a file called three_musketeers.avi. Is it the new film, or one of the freely available public domain versions?

"99% of those files are infringing"

I suppose you have a citation rather than another moronic assumption?

"Close down the binaries"

...and remove yet another avenue for independent producers to market their work.

"Pirate Mike just doesn't like the reality:"

Reality appears to be something you're unfamiliar with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 8:58am

Re: Re: Re: oh mikey
LOL! I tell you what... Check back with this story later on and see what they end up doing to comply with the court order. How much do you want to be they close down the binaries? It's really not hard. Will some non-infringing works get taken down wrongfully? Sure, but the blame for that lies with you pirates.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Oct 2011 @ 9:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re: oh mikey
"Will some non-infringing works get taken down wrongfully? Sure"

Yeah, you don't care because those works are probably not distributed by your glorious corporate overlords, right? According to you lot, nobody creates art without a massive cash payment.

"you pirates"

It's pretty pathetic that you people seem to think that protecting free speech and the public domain, and telling the industry what's losing it money, equates to piracy. I'll bet whatever you have that I spend more on legal content than you, and I'll supply the receipts to prove it if you insist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 9:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oh mikey
Because so many legitimate movies are distributed using Usenet. Give me a break... Shutting down the binaries is the obvious solution to an easy problem. You dipshits brought this on yourselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 1 Oct 2011 @ 9:50am

Re: Re: oh mikey
The top groups of Usenet are binaries, and about 99% of those files are infringing.

Even if you were right - which 99%?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 1 Oct 2011 @ 9:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oh mikey
"Because so many legitimate movies are distributed using Usenet."

Again, citation, please, for the ratios you're claiming. PD movies and indie flicks are distributed via usenet as well as other avenues.

"Shutting down the binaries is the obvious solution to an easy problem."

Yeah, you're not paid to care about collateral damage, are you. Luckily for those of us whose morals aren't dependant on the dollar value, art has intrinsic value not related to it.

"You dipshits brought this on yourselves."

...and another idiotic insult aimed at accusing me as a pirate rather than actually addressing any of my point. You're an idiot.

For what it's worth I'll admit to downloading a couple of copyrighted works via usenet. That weren't available legally in my country. In 1997. At this rate, you're going to destroy piracy aren't you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 1 Oct 2011 @ 10:32am

What?
Like I've said before, the in's-and-out's of the digital world are well beyond the capability of most people. Mostly because it deals with so much detail and detail is the thing most people try to avoid. Lawyers/Judges/Courts like to think they deal with detail....Ha! Modern systems and how those systems are used are generally way beyond them. Wave a magic wand indeed! The sad thing is, they really do think it's that easy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 12:03pm

Re: Re:
Sort of a non-answer. You seem to be saying that because maybe a few people might want to break the law, that these companies should be allowed to make money by encouraging, supporting, and providing the means to do so, knowing exactly what is happening.

You are suggesting they are "too big to fail", which is bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 12:26pm

Re: Re: Re:
Who cares about the companies? answer nobody.
Who cares about sharing? answer the entire population on earth.

I see you plans of world domination and control will go well.

You do know that to stop sharing you will have to stop people from communicating with each other right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 12:33pm

Re: Re: Re:
Here is a little facts to you.

- Usenet can be mirroed and it has been done a thousand times already.
- Usenet can run in an overlay on top of the internet and you wouldn't be able to police it.
- Usenet is just a little tiny piece of the puzzle, you people didn't make a dent on the real "piracy". How do I know? I didn't stop ripping DVD's and I don't see the SWAT teams at my door, where are you people, I'm a pirate why can't you stop me? More impressive I can record TV OMG! I can record radio OMG! I can record any stream OMG! will you close HULU and VEVO, all radio stations and TV broadcasters? yah that is what I thought.

You come in front of people with idiotic theories of what others are doing or thinking and when proven wrong just keep beating that drum over and over again, nobody cares, the real people ripping off your precious content don't care and they will never care, I sure won't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CJ (profile), 1 Oct 2011 @ 12:50pm

usenet
The only way I see to get out of this mess is to allow the people that use it to be able to flag the content. But even that has flaws because many wont see it as copyrighted. Others wont care they just want to download it. So it is still a fail for usenet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 12:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oh mikey
Usenet is a distributed platform for distribution and promotion.

There are groups of photographers, movie makers, theater, dance, tech, cooking and so forth do you think those people don't share images, texts, audio and video? Youtube should give you a hint is mostly user made content, the vast majority of videos there are not from TV, studios, radio or labels is from people with a camera, the same is true of Usenet.

Looking at the stats, people have a lot of non-binary forums there, there is also a lot of binary forums that have common themes like pr0n and Madonna for some reason, I guess is the people from the 80's that still keep using that old crap called Usenet, like in 30 years people will still be using Limewire(eDonkey network), now if it is so easy to find the illegal ones lets make a law that punishes harshly anyone who takes down legal content, it should be a crime to claim ownership on what is no yours right?
http://usenetstats.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

Usenet is not going away, you are closing the paid static servers, not the distributed nature of the system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 12:57pm

Re: Re: Re:
Usenet is a user content produced platform mostly designed to house forums for discussions about themes people like and distribute their images, audio, text and video produced by the users and it got used to distribute "illegal" stuff too.

The unintended consequences is that by shutting down Usenet you have a positive ruling for doing so to other user content platforms that range from political to recreational.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 1:02pm

Re: Re: Re:
Forgot, Usenet is not just used for piracy it is also used for political activism that is protected speech, now if that can just be ignored because of claims of piracy that is troubleling.

Also there is a problem with the whole concept of "shoot first and let God sort them out later" approach.

There is a lot of content in there that is legal, why there is no punishment for people claiming ownership on what they don't legally own?

You see that is the one thing that tilts the balance and creates an perilous imbalance on the system, as we can already see with the DMCA most of the complaints are target at competitors, is not something used to right a wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin, 1 Oct 2011 @ 1:08pm

Re: Re: Re: oh mikey
Good point. Better make it 100% just to be sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul keating, 1 Oct 2011 @ 2:07pm

Tomorrow's "Postmaster" message
Is this the message we will all see tomorrow after sending an email?

"Your mesage has been received by the central IP Clearinghouse System. �It will now be reviewed for compliance with the intellectual property laws of the 345 legal jurisdictions currently existing on our Planet. �During this process all the words, phrases and various other bits of your message, including any attachments, will be reviewed by our systems to ensure that same do not conflict with the rights of our members. Please be patient as the review includes a search for possible conflict with any word combinations or ideas that have �(or in the case of copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets, may not have been) registered under the laws of any of the above 345 countries (or in the case of the USA any of the 50 states thereof).�

We estimate that this review may takeup to 20 working days. Again, please be patient. We are undertaking this effort for the benefit of you and the public in general in order to ensure that creative development continues to grow and civilization continues to prosper.�

If you wish to avoid file review in the future you may subscribe to our "save our old way of life" campaign and for the cost of a mere $100 per month your emails will bypass review and be delivered immediately. Note that certain restrictions may apply. �For complete deltails call 1 (900) 555.1212 (toll charges of $0.50 per minute).

Sincerely
YOUR IP Rights Management Partners
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 2:34pm

Re: Re: oh mikey
And you resort to slander. Classy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Other Guy (profile), 1 Oct 2011 @ 3:36pm

Re:
Not understanding how things work is how we manage to have modern technology. If everyone had to understand everything, humanity could hardly even manage to stay at the hunter-gatherer level.

Having said that, I agree with your point that if a judge doesn't understand something, he should call in experts to explain it to him. (or her)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 4:20pm

Re: Tomorrow's "Postmaster" message
It is time to build our own internet and put those people out of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
R, 1 Oct 2011 @ 5:58pm

"It's kind of amazing that a court of law can't understand how the internet works."

It's not that they don't understand, it's that they don't give a crap. That's the law, if usenet can't follow it then it can't be legally run.
The problem with this approach is that when you stop caring about you're adversaries, you effectively lose any chance you had of getting them on board and negotiating a compromise - it just devolves into all out war.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bengie, 1 Oct 2011 @ 8:02pm

Re: Re:
Any logic is easy to follow. It just comes down to that judge being too stupid to understand anything. He/She needs to be spoon feed everything and regurgitates on demand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 1 Oct 2011 @ 9:12pm

Re: Re: Re: oh mikey
Calling someone names generally is not slander. And calling them names in writing as far as I'm aware in the US is never slander. I think the UK has a ruling that some writings are slander due to their conversational nature. Someone tell me if I have my jurisdictions wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Oct 2011 @ 12:27am

BREIN claims it is possible, why doesn't NSE demand they give the court their magic wand that makes it happen?

I think the Judge would have to reconsider when its shown that what BREIN demands is completely impossible, that even BREIN can not make it happen. BREIN seeks to limit all sorts of things to protect copyright, while stomping on everything else.

Isn't this the same BREIN that has been handed evidence in cases, stolen laptops, seized servers and committed acts that if not for their political donations would be seen as unlawful acts?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WysiWyg (profile), 2 Oct 2011 @ 1:05am

Re: Re: oh mikey
This of course assume that the only thing infringing on someones copyright are movies and similar files.

What about text? What about pictures? What about music? You will be hard pressed to throw those out with a size cap.

And here's the kicker; the company will be on the hook for a crapload of money if someone finds a picture that's copyrighted.

No sane company takes that risk. Which means that the only way to comply with the courtorder is to shut down.

There is no other way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2011 @ 7:03am

Re: One more money waster by BREIN
And to all you BREIN shills, I invite you to a special party we're having at in your honer at ba. Its called the "Epic Fail of BREIN and Friends"

Is it being held at the Mininova headquarters?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WysiWyg (profile), 2 Oct 2011 @ 7:18am

Re: Re: One more money waster by BREIN
Nah, at the headquarters of TPB of course. :-P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2011 @ 9:00am

Re: Re: Re:
Now when I visit Usenet it says

"Disabled
This website has been disabled!
The reason may include failure to pay for the
service or usage beyond the agreed limits."

http://www.usenet.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 2 Oct 2011 @ 11:24am

Re:
You're asking a judge to understand technology he knows nothing about...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 2 Oct 2011 @ 11:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Surely you must be aware that usenet isn't a website, but a service that predates the web?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2011 @ 2:31pm

Re:
they are coming for your guns next
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2011 @ 3:04pm

BREIN is proof that all of the infringing material can't be identified and removed. If BREIN can't do it with the tools and laws already available, then how do they expect the usenet provider to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 2 Oct 2011 @ 4:27pm

Fscking idiots in this world
Pray, tell, how exactly do you accomplish this:

"Shutting down the binaries is the obvious solution to an easy problem. You dipshits brought this on yourselves."

Spoken from true ignorance about how the internet works. Please, enlighten us, how do you simply "shut down" a system that is decentralized, and where everyone has a copy of the data?

See, its ignorant, intellectually inadequate people like you that are the problem in this world.

Just to educate you, BRIEN, and the rest of the know-nothings in the world, Usenet works essentially like this:

Usenet is made up of many "peers." These peers are repositories of all the data on usenet. These peers can be anyone - an ISP, a usenet provider like the paid ones (like Giganews) or even a university. When something is posted (and this is the important part - info is posted TO usenet, not CREATED by these peers) the information is copied out to all the peers. These posts are ALL (please read this part carefully and try to grasp the concept) in PLAIN TEXT. There is no such thing as a "binary" posting.

ALL POSTINGS ARE IN PLAIN TEXT.

The "binaries" aspect comes in where some clever people have found a way to encode a file (the "binary" but really its just a FILE, any file, any kind of file) using this plain text, in as many multiple parts as necessary to get the whole file out. Once someone downloads all these parts, the file can be reconstructed out of this plain text back into its original form.

BINARIES ARE JUST FILES, NOT ONLY PROGRAMS OR MOVIES.

So, as you can see, you can post ANY kind of file to ANY place on usenet and it can be downloaded by anyone.

The whole "shut down binaries groups" is specious. The "binaries groups" are just a group with a name - like alt.binaries.pictures. This can be ANYTHING. Groups just got named to make it easier to identify the type of material most likely to be in them. Shutting down/removing all "alt.binaries.-whatever" groups will do ZERO NOTHING NADA to stop people from posting files.

Lets repeat that for the cheap seats and the willfully ignorant with blinders on and their fingers in their ears:

REMOVING ANY GROUP WILL NOT STOP PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO POST FILES TO USENET.

You will solve exactly ZERO piracy issues by doing so. People will just either move to other groups, or create news ones with weird or obscure names and continue on.

The only way for ANY isp, company or anyone to follow a court-order to "remove binaries from usenet" is to destroy usenet utterly and remove the entire system from the internet.

So, if you truly feel that this is an acceptable solution, that removing ALL speech because of SOME infringing things, then by all means, destroy usenet. But be prepared to also destroy everything else that is similar: Bitorrent, Google, Newspapers, TV, and speech in general. Because these can all ALSO be used to infringe illegally, and since you have shown to have no problem burning the baby along with the crib, you have to support doing so as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2011 @ 5:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A usenet like forum lived on Arpanet before the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2011 @ 7:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
,i>Now when I visit Usenet it says

"Disabled
This website has been disabled!
The reason may include failure to pay for the
service or usage beyond the agreed limits."

http://www.usenet.com/

Damn BREIN, way to go!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Oct 2011 @ 6:27am

Re: Fscking idiots in this world
My ISP blocks binaries. It's not hard to do. Next.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 3 Oct 2011 @ 7:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re: oh mikey
Sure, but the blame for that lies with you pirates.
And you wouldn't have to beat your wife if she would just iron your shirts correctly, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WysiWyg (profile), 3 Oct 2011 @ 7:47am

How?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Oct 2011 @ 9:38am

Re: Re: One more money waster by BREIN
I already told you where it is in my post. That way we keep idiots like you who can't understand out
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Oct 2011 @ 9:40am

Re: Re: Fscking idiots in this world
Ours blocks many things too (or believes it does HAHAHA)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 3 Oct 2011 @ 10:59am

Re: Re: Fscking idiots in this world
Blocking The Pirate Bay is easy to do too, and equally effective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
can't be bothered to sign in, 4 Oct 2011 @ 2:18pm

Re:
"BREIN claims it is possible, why doesn't NSE demand they give the court their magic wand that makes it happen?"

Actually, that was in the verdict: "The fact that NSE states it cannot filter the binaries does not prevent granting an injunction." So basically the court simply ignores the fact that authorized content might also have to be deleted.

To be fair, you have to consider that it's very easy to show that the latest movies can be downloaded from Usenet without permission from the rights-holders. It's true after all, so there "clearly" exists a "problem"(in BREIN's mind anyway). It's not so easy to show that this is an inevitable consequence of the free flow of information.

The fact that Usenet has been used for sharing content so intensively these last few years really hurt NSE�s case. It also hurt that it appears to have been making an effort to keep the binaries available on its servers for longer and longer, apparently to improve it�s service, which apparently consisted largely(>80%) of supplying infringing content, or at least the means by which it can be acquired.

The main argument for the defense is probably best summed up by that NSE is not required to police Usenet. However, Dutch judges really don't like a "passive innocent bystander defense", especially not if that bystander appears to be making money in the process. Dutch law requires everyone to actively defend the rights of others, unless there is a good reason not to do so (e.g. endangering your own life). To win the case on this point, NSE would have had to A) actually prove it is impossible to implement a filter, and B) actually prove that there is a legitimate cause for providing its services in the manner it did. They may have stated such arguments, but didn't prove them or offer to prove them (which means you give the court a valid excuse to ignore the argument completely).

As usual, none of the technical reports and other bull-crap BREIN used (you know, the stuff that is debunked by Mike on a daily basis) to make its case was seriously challenged. BREIN is a well-funded and well-organized outfit. Its court strategies are well thought through and part of a larger plan. It doesn't mind losing a case or two (although it will deny ever having lost a case). This verdict opens the way for it to go after ISPs or at least to threaten them with it. Some of the reasoning in this ruling could have much larger ramifications.
[ link to this | view in thread ]