• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

newzbin resurrected?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 297713
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 297713

Guest
Now we might get see how other country will judge this case.

Good old pack your suitcases and move on elsewhere.:)
 

Miyazaki

Distinguished Member
LOL

Epic fail for the MPAA :clap:
 
D

Deleted member 30535

Guest
I bet the MPAA choked on their collective smugness when they saw the Phoenix rise from the embers!
 
D

Deleted member 297713

Guest
It was a silly fought court case likely under the instructons of big brother USA.

There is no law against indexing. Only UK civil case anyway, sue as much as they want.

I wouldn't mind having say £5m through a limited company, paid my wages, paid my own coding company etc, then get sued £20m on the limited company. Beside it is not illegal or immoral for indexing. Their sniffer dogs lawyer companies are far more immoral x1000.

Lobby for a new law or mind their own business.

In the meantime, newzbin :smashin:.
 

Gary D

Distinguished Member
Well thats lovely news for a sunday morning :)

I might have to re-engage my Giganews account now :smashin:
 
D

Deleted member 30535

Guest
Looks like newzbin.com is now registered to a company in the Seychelles. I wonder if the MPAA will go after ISP's for allowing their DNS servers to handle traffic to that and similar sites? I can't believe they'll go away just licking their wounds and grumbling into their lattés.
 

Steven

Senior Moderator
There is no law against indexing. Only UK civil case anyway, sue as much as they want.
Do you specialise in consistent ignorance? For the last time the High Court judge did not throw the book at Newzbin because they were indexing. It was because they were indexing illegal rips of Blu-Ray films

I have to question the maturity and/or logic of torrent downloaders. It is like a convicted drink driver shouting from their rooftop they were sent down for only driving and then other drink drivers expressing their agreement at being prevented from driving
 
D

Deleted member 30535

Guest
It was because they were indexing illegal rips of Blu-Ray films

The MPAA had requested that Newzbin be closed down permanently but the Judge disagreed on the basis that the MPAA did not own the copyright on all the indexed materials. Newzbin had been given time to remove the "offending" indices but we now know they were unable to comply without incurring significant costs. So they threw in the towel knowing they probably had huge punitive damages heading their way anyway.

I read that if Newzbin had indexed EVERYTHING on usenet (not just selective binaries) then there wouldn't have been a case to answer to. It was because Newzbin was a filtered service which "specialised" in the indexing of copyrighted material that resulted in the action succeeding.

Do you specialise in consistent ignorance?

Do you specialise in simultaneously making your point and insulting others?
 

Miyazaki

Distinguished Member
I have to question the maturity and/or logic of torrent downloaders. It is like a convicted drink driver shouting from their rooftop they were sent down for only driving and then other drink drivers expressing their agreement at being prevented from driving

How can you compare downloading to drink driving?

Talk about being brain washed! ;)
 
D

Deleted member 297713

Guest
There are personal opinions, judge rulings and practical outcomes.

Only one matters in the real world, practical outcomes. Business operate within legal enviroment and legal systems operate in the real world. What happens in the real world dictates.

We will wait and see.

My opinion, the last case ruling was based on that specific circumstances and admissions with that judge ruling. That business model was found damaging to the film companies. Indexing is not illegal by a specific law.

The happiest of all, are the solicitors/lawyers as they now may potential have another paid case on their hands.
 

Steven

Senior Moderator
How can you compare downloading to drink driving?
It's called an analogy. It'd only be a waste of time to explain again about the blu-ray rips, as amusing as the last thread proved in all these forum members pretending not to know what people used Newzbin for. Not one single law anywhere in the world or any judge in the world prevents indexing. It is only prevented when copyright is breached
Do you specialise in simultaneously making your point and insulting others?
Who's insulting anyone? Ignorance of the law is not a defence. People who download these illegal rips of blu-ray titles seem to think they are unique. They aren't. It is founded on copyright law developed and refined over centuries. See why a Harry Potter fan wikipedia had an injunction slapped against it. I rather think I am actually doing some of these posters a favour
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 297713

Guest
I am all for lobbying a new law if they can do it, if they got the goverment on their payroll etc.

In the meantime, stick with civil challenges all over the world, if the government/judge play their game.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I am honestly interested to see what will happen in Sweden (opps maybe seychelles).

Meanwhile, newzbin. I really do not think using newzbin is illegal neither:) but that is my guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 30535

Guest
Who's insulting anyone? Ignorance of the law is not a defence. People who download these illegal rips of blu-ray titles seem to think they are unique. They aren't. It is founded on copyright law developed and refined over centuries. See why a Harry Potter fan wikipedia had an injunction slapped against it. I rather think I am actually doing some of these posters a favour

How does anyone "specialise" in consistent ignorance? It's an emotive demeaning adjective aimed at putting the poster down. Why not enlighten and educate rather than making measured put downs??

[-]Do you specialise in consistent ignorance? For the last time[/-] [-]t[/-]The High Court judge did not throw the book at Newzbin because they were indexing. It was because they were indexing illegal rips of Blu-Ray films

That's how I'd have responded.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Andy Leitch

Active Member
Do you specialise in consistent ignorance? For the last time the High Court judge did not throw the book at Newzbin because they were indexing. It was because they were indexing illegal rips of Blu-Ray films

I have to question the maturity and/or logic of torrent downloaders.
Newzbin/Usenet are not Bittorrent/torrents.
 
D

Deleted member 297713

Guest
Bittorent can get you in trouble because you have to help upload to download.

Newzbin/usenet is typically download only. i.e. generally one do not get in trouble buying copies as end user has no mechanism to verify or nor has the responsibility.

Can someone please point out a law against downloading films/music (not torrent), preferably with a test case. I do not think what LFC trying to point out (downloading) is illegal at the moment.

Newzbin is now also out of UK control. Data will be 'imported' by user.

This is probably where the UK law ends.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jdevil

Distinguished Member
Can someone please point out a law against downloading films/music (not torrent), preferably with a test case. I do not think what LFC trying to point out (downloading) is illegal at the moment.

Copyright law.

If you didn't pay for it, then you don't own it. There is no justification for downloading films illegally.

This is the point LFC is trying to make, torrent users trying to make themselves innocent yet their not.
 
D

Deleted member 297713

Guest
as legal/illegal if you went in a book shop, bought a book but it turn out to be a photocopy done by the book shop rather than a licensed copy.

Shop is breaking copyright, not the person walking out with it.

Torrent is a different ball game, somewhat like as you take a copy, you leave another copy for the next person. So you are involved in copying (in this case uploading).

Paying it or not, was never a defining legal part of copyright. Copyright materials could be free. Most adverts have copyright, in fact you could be paid to watch it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Noggin1980

Distinguished Member
When they provide a legit service that comes close to the one the pirates provide they will have alot easier time convincing people not to pirate. Of course there will always be people who do it for the cost reasons but a very significant percentage of people do it because the legit offerings simply don't compete.

As it stands now pirateing is the only way to watch many of the great American TV shows especially in a timly manner.

I'll hapily pay £50 a month for a service where I can have access to all tv shows with no adverts during the show (be happy for them to force a minute of adverts before and after every show). I'd insist on the shows being availible the day after broadcasting in the US and to be able to watch any episode I chose from any season up to that point.

Untill they provide that if you really love your American TV (and it's leagues above UK tv in general with only a few exceptions) you have to be willing to pirate.

Movies arn't so clear cut but for instance you could download Blu-ray quality versions of When in Rome and She's out of my league before they hit the cinemas here. People are much less likely to pirate when you don't make them wait months after the movie is availble elsewhere before you show it here.
 

lfcmonkey

Active Member
Been back up for a while now but not gone back to it for some reason, still using NZB Matrix :smashin:
 

jdevil

Distinguished Member
Torrent is a different ball game, somewhat like as you take a copy, you leave another copy for the next person. So you are involved in copying (in this case uploading).

So this is legal then you say, Spreading illegal copy of games and films?
 

Iccz

Distinguished Member
So this is legal then you say, Spreading illegal copy of games and films?

Of course, everyone knows that downloading is perfectly legal... it's just uploading :rolleyes:


I'd love to know who first came up with that concept... :laugh:
 

jdevil

Distinguished Member
as legal/illegal if you went in a book shop, bought a book but it turn out to be a photocopy done by the book shop rather than a licensed copy.
Well you do know that you can make photocopies of books for references and education. The same way schools photocopies a lot of their tasks from text books.

Anyway apart from libraries I don't know a person that copies a book which averages around 300 pages, would probably work out the same as buying the book.
 
D

Deleted member 297713

Guest
Well you do know that you can make photocopies of books for references and education. The same way schools photocopies a lot of their tasks from text books.

Only a small part for reference, not a whole book.

Anyway apart from libraries I don't know a person that copies a book which averages around 300 pages, would probably work out the same as buying the book.

We are talking legality, not practicality in this analogy.
 
D

Deleted member 297713

Guest
Of course, everyone knows that downloading is perfectly legal... it's just uploading :rolleyes:

This is the point.

Since when someone is getting done for buying knock-offs for own use?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

Guardians of the Galaxy Xmas Special, Strange World, Bones and All, and Cabinet of Dr Caligari in 4K
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom