Newzbin code leak could lead to return of Usenet indexer A clone site of Newzbin could be winging its way onto the interwebs soon, after its source code was stolen. Just last week the Usenet indexer went titsup due to legal action from the Motion Picture Association of America. Not long after that Newzbin admins confirmed in a blog post that the code had unsurprisingly been leaked …
the Digital Economy Bill... now the Digital Economy Act cuts off all of usenet?
I wonder how many people out there, amongst the general populus, outside the geek-o-sphere realise that Bit Torrent is one of the best ways to get caught.
Me? I always pay for copyright content. Or I watch for free on iPlayer or even hulu.com by using a USA proxy.
Hulu.com is free. It is ad-supported. It is not piracy.
All UK people could use it just fine, if they hopped on plane and went to the US. A more green solution would be to use a proxy. Because I care about my carbon footprint.
The same goes for southparkstudios.com, colbernation.com & the Daily Show site. I will not be discriminated against for being in Blighty.
Unfortunately FACT disagree, it is not blocked in blighty by accident or for technical reasons but because you have no license to watch it, and by doing so you are breaking the copyright restriction, same as grey importing DVD's or any other avoidance of regional restrictions.
How does this large group of people paying to download fit in with copyright holders usual argument that they cant compete against 'free' and hence they don't want to innovate until piracy is removed.
I don't pay because I prefer to pirate, but while there no decent alternative my £17 a month will go to a usenet provider rather than the rightsholders. These people have had 10 years to sort it out yet they still persist with outdated models of business like regional release times, overpriced digital content and DRM. The situation is looking slightly better in the US with Hulu and netflix but that's no help to me.
Here we go, another freetard plugging his freetard agenda. "It's their fault I can't stop copying stuff I'm not entitled to! Blame them! If the internet wasn't so tempting, I would stop!".
So when software isn't enough, you going to start ram-raiding the local COMET? "Sorry officer, but it's SONY's fault! They make such shiny goods, I can't resist nicking one! They can afford it!"
Cry me a river! It's illegal, you know it, I know it and everyone knows everyone else does it! It's just 99.999% of us haven't been caught yet!
"How does this large group of people paying to download fit in with copyright holders usual argument that they cant compete against 'free' and hence they don't want to innovate until piracy is removed."
Because that large group of people were paying a small sum to the indexer in order to download stuff from Usenet which they would otherwise have to pay a damn sight more for. They were basically paying the operators of the indexer - the artists, studios and record labels that financed the creation of that stuff got bugger all from Newzbin. It's like paying your ISP for a broadband connection, and then downloading truckloads of music or movies using Bittorrent. The difference is that unlike your ISP, Newzbin existed solely to facilitate illegal downloading of copyrighted material.
The TV stations all bleat about being paid by advertising and downloads cutting the ads out.
Well here's news... I skip the ads on the SKY box from all the stuff I record on it. So, other than paying SKY of course, is it stealing? I'm certainly not buying anything I see advertised. Mind you everything is being advertised using the damned worldcuptwatball template at the moment anyway.
I'd happily pay the same amount places like giganews and newzbin charge for a legit service that had the same breadth of data available in the same manner. As long as the provider publicly stated how much they paid to the content creators, of course. Guess THAT will be a long time coming...
I too fats forward the adverts through Sky+, however I don't see this as stealing as such for a few important reasons:
(1) I already pay Sky for my subscription. They then pay the channel providers out of that money. Not sure how this works with ITV/C4/5 but I imagine it is something similar. They also get some of the license fee so I am quite happy I am "doing my bit."
(2) I don't watch everything from recorded, the things that are live still get the opportunity to try to sell their brand of crap to an empty room whilst I am making a cuppa or visiting the toilet.
I think the problem with advert supported locational services (such as hulu.com or whatever) is that TV advertising must be effective (or they wouldn't spend money on it) but not to someone who couldn't ever use or buy the product being advertised. Sure I would love a Smith and Wesson PerpKiller .45 Auto - but plod would not be too happy, I don't need to know about the latest quitfiddlin drug as it is not up to me what my GP prescribes and I couldn't buy a '98 Chevvy BigBoy from Honest Kyles motors in Milwaukee cos I live in Blighty.
Ridiculous rulings such as this one show the courts up for their ignorance of the InterNet. UK law doesn't govern my use of the InterNet outside the UK and besides most rulings are circumvented by the US Constitutional provisions.
I live in a 'controlled' InterNet environment where users are prevented, thankfully, from signing into Facebook and a few other web sites.
None of these precautions work, even from behind the great Firewall of China. Whilst Mr Justice Kitchin might wallow in the glory of his ruling, it is hollow and meaningless and demonstrates how futile the courts are when faced with proxies and VPN technology.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
