According to Retro Guy <
[email protected]>:
There's no secret. They act on the DMCA notices they receive and
delete the offending articles. I've been a technical expert in some
court cases on this very topic.
I’m not very familiar with US law. The reason I’m puzzled is that the
point of carrying binary groups is, rather obviously, to facilitate
large-scale copyright violation, not some more innocuous pursuit that
happens to be troubled by the occasional pirated movie.
Can you really get away with that (at least in the USA) as long as you
respond to notices from the rights holders who actually bother to check?
Yes. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act
If so then how is it that Napster was destroyed?
A combination of not taking the DMCA seriously, bad lawyering, and bad luck.
Most binaries are now hidden behind file names and subjects that give
no indication of what is there. You need to be part of one of the roving >groups sharing the hidden_name -> real_name conversion to know what to >download.
So, browsing the groups does not give the info needed to submit a DCMA >notice.
Media companies have spiders scouring the web looking for infringing
stuff. I'm sure they could do the same with a usenet feed, but I have
no idea how much they do, since usenet is so relatively tiny these days.
For an example of how not to do this, see the current case in which the
entire music industry is suing Twitter.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/14/23761680/twitter-music-lawsuit-nmpa-copyright-infringement
--
Regards,
John Levine,
[email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
https://jl.ly
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)