In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

On the ruling itself, it shows again how backwards the UK is, the fact is these american companies wont get this ruling in their own country

I'm sure I read somewhere that the MPA have got ISP's in the US to throttle offending users until they stop doing it? Could be wrong of course.

They have not got sites censored, the USA had a ruling in the past which actually gave isps a slap for traffic shaping based on protocol. Now they may have adopted a policy similiar to the 3 strikes rule but thats not net censorship.

Suspicious and Suggested, my key words, I'm clear on their definitions.

Indeed how many p2p users, are customers of TT? Again It will also be suggested, whatever your use of p2p and by going over the 50GB, you are not using it for legitimate purposes. Moreover its not my concern that p2p has been high jacked by copy right breaches.

I still find it amazing that some on this thread have completely missed the real point. Why is it so neccessary by some to completely gloss over the Fact that the media industry is a victim of theft?
If any other business was seeing physical products stolen most would see it quite acceptable for measures to be taken to stop such activity.
Now a judge has seen all the evidence of one particular web "outlet" that draws a significant amount of "members" through it's "model" which facilitates (via its software) in the finding and downloading of copyrighted material (in a streamlined way) which does have a monetary value.
I don't doubt that those sheer numbers result in a huge number of downloads of copyrighted material, which as the media business deals In copies (as their product), is a direct deprivation of their income.

Any other argument beyond this is pointless, because the media companies legal actions wouldn't be happening if it wasn't for mass theft against them. When those people actually acknowledge that and act accordingly there won't be any requirement for blocking x, y or z

Your talking about theft. I'm talking about censorship of a website.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Your talking about theft. I'm talking about censorship of a website.

Which I commented about on the last bit of my post. If such a site is a honey pot for those looking for quick and efficient links to reliable downloads on usenet and most their (if not all) traffic is for those looking for copyrighted material, then they are in a different league to a web search engine.
In fact it could be seen and may be the case, that most, if not all searches made through them, are made to find copyrighted media - which I guess the site is fully tailored to. I should imagine that the evidence (and counter evidence) put to the judge fully established that - hence the judgement.

Its not tailored to that though. It just searches the entire index of Usenet. If Usenet contains mostly copy written material the index will reflect it.

So why not (as per my previous posts) go for Usenet and DMCA takedowns?

nzb's like torrents arn't created automagically so sites like newzbin arn't just indexing but having users/editors create the nzbs & reports out of their index. this was the main point of contention during the previous newzbin trial.

newzbin used too (still may) have a searchable header index from usenet, where the "public" could create their own nzbs. this wasn't proven to be a method of copyright infringement for the people accessing it.

Edited by acting_funny (Fri 29-Jul-11 19:50:56)

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

The original Newzbin web site did charge a subscription of £0.3p per week, they were closed down in the summer of 2010.

This adjudication is against Newzbin 2 who came into being within weeks of the Newzbin website's closure, and as far as I'm aware Newzbin 2 do not charge for accessing the site and will remain operational until sometime in October' 2011

Newzbin2 charge .30p a week.

These stupid fat cat corporations will never stop people from downloading stuff for free on the net and long may it continue. I say, the more these greedy corporate pigs try an cencor the net and shut down torrents, P2P, the more we should download and do what we like.

If someone says you can't do something, then just do the opposite.

Long live P2P, free downloads and use any means to get around blocked websites or security. The internet belong to everyone.

Sod the lot of them and stick two fingers up to the lot of them.

In reply to a post by hitachi:

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

The original Newzbin web site did charge a subscription of £0.3p per week, they were closed down in the summer of 2010.

This adjudication is against Newzbin 2 who came into being within weeks of the Newzbin website's closure, and as far as I'm aware Newzbin 2 do not charge for accessing the site and will remain operational until sometime in October' 2011

Newzbin2 charge .30p a week.

If you were a memer of the original Newzbin you pay nothing to use Newwzbin2. Anyway I would say that Newzbin & Newzbin2 have seen better days, there are far more powerful indexing sites out there that do not employ users or editors and who certainly don't charge anything.