Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

DVDRs.net Next to Go

Discuss Slyck's latest news
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

DVDRs.net Next to Go

Postby SlyckTom » Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:23 pm

It was unusual for the MPAA to strike against Usenet (Newsgroup) indexing sites, as their importance has always been seen as minor compared to BitTorrent and eDonkey2000. Perhaps two years ago this notion would have been true; however two years might as well be two hundred years when we're discussing Internet technology.

Usenet has shifted from being a relatively obscure player to a significant content resource. The key reason for Usenet's advance into mainstream file-sharing is the growing ease in obtaining files from this medium.

Several years ago, Usenet was reserved for a more advanced crowd of Internet citizens. It took work to shuffle through individual Newsgroups (ie, alt.binaries.dvd, alt.binaries.dvdr, etc.) to find material. It was necessary to download hundreds, if not thousands of headers (similar to an email header.) The end user had to then select the relevant headers, download the associated messages, and assemble the archive. The archive is a group of compressed files, which when assembled yields the requested media file.

Unless you're familiar with Newsgroups, the above paragraph probably didn't make much sense. And that was enough to keep the mainstream audience at bay. PAR and NZB files changed all that.

PAR files, or Parity files, are considered God's gift to the Newsgroups. Their basic function is to reassemble an archive that may have several missing or damaged files. In the past, if an archive had just one file damaged, the entire download was lost. Par files mathematically calculate the missing binary code and reassemble (or repair) the damaged files.

The most important advancement to the Newsgroups was the advent of NZB (Newzbin) files. NZB files completely eliminate the confusing and deterring steps pointed out in the above paragraphs, and streamlines Newsgroup downloading. The NZB file tells the Usenet client in which Newsgroup the requested file archive is located and which headers to download. Simply put, NZB files allow even the most inept of individuals to point, click and download the file he or she desires.

Further facilitating the Newsgroups migration to simplicity are indexing sites such as DVDRs.net. Like BitTorrent or eDonkey2000 indexing sites, Newsgroup indexing sites act as a catalog for available files. Instead of hosting .torrent files or hash links, Newsgroup indexing sites index NZB files. Throw in a search engine, and its Newsgroups made easy.

Unfortunately for such indexers, the entertainment industry has caught on to this growing trend towards simplicity. Last week, the MPAA cited NZB-Zone.com, BinNews.com and DVDRs.net as the first Usenet indexing websites targeted in their online copyright war. Like ED2K-It.com, the complainants contend DVDRs.com is liable for inducing, contributory, and vicariously enabling copyright infringement.

"The blatant infringements made possible by using Defendants’ website are obvious – and are well-known to and encouraged by Defendants. Anyone who visits the website, including Defendants themselves, can immediately observe the site’s catalog of infringing files."

The seemingly impossible odds, especially in the American file-sharing climate, appear to give the DVDRs.net administration little choice but to discontinue the existence of their site. The administration plans on launching a new site, dubbed "Talk DVD", however any connotation to file-sharing or NZB files will be left in the past. From DVDRs.net's administrator "Descds":

"To this end we feel its time to drop reference to Usenet entirely. We understand that this may be seen as defeat or guilt by some parties but we feel its more about compliance and adaptivity. If a governing body feel that what we do is illegal we wish no part of it and will show willingness to comply by removing areas that may be in dispute. This isn't about acceptance of guilt, this is about removing anything that people deem offensive.

"DVDRS will reach its final evolvement and we hope you understand why and where we are heading. We also understand that DVDRS will always be seen, in light of recent press, as a site that dealt in illegal file sharing. We feel there is no way we can recover from this and thus will re-launch Talk DVD with some of DVDRS database and ideas. This decision has not come easy for us and it pains us to do so."

A timetable for the launch of Talk DVD has not been announced. To what extent this mitigates DVDRs.net's current legal situation remains to be seen, yet underscores the significance of the Newsgroups.
Follow us on Twitter @SlyckDotCom
Join our Facebook Fan page
SlyckTom
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New York City

Postby Leecherâ„¢ » Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:39 pm

All I use is BinSearch and NZBZone. I don't need anything else. I gather there will be people who miss it and people who don't. Either way, the law will always be one step behind...
Ah, yes...
Leecherâ„¢
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:01 pm

Postby Allied » Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:40 pm

The administration plans on launching a new site, dubbed "DVD Talk", ...

...We feel there is no way we can recover from this and thus will re-launch Talk DVD

Well which is it? DVD Talk or Talk DVD?

This is a historic event. The first NZB site to be taken down in the filesharing wars. I'm glad it didn't goto court. Otherwise there'd be precedent set.

As I recall DVDRS required a paid registration. Can anyone confirm that?
User avatar
Allied
Mostly Harmless
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:23 pm
Location: Behind You Shoe Size: 11.008 BitTorrent: µTorrent Nationality: Canuckian Newsgroups: GrabIt

Postby Leecherâ„¢ » Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:49 pm

I recall a user having to pay. I can't confirm it, though.
Ah, yes...
Leecherâ„¢
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:01 pm

Postby abou105 » Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:23 pm

see this is one of the reasons technology is shooting itself in the foot, this is the begining of something big and it is thanks to the ease at which newsgroups can now be navagated that attention has been brought to them.

I can see pressure being put on servers next, the big ones may well hold because they have legit reasons to be too but the smaller ones could be in for it.

shame really. It could hit the p2p world hard as alot of media trickles down from newsgroups.
Information is so valuable in todays society, its understandable people want to lock it up, but the internet is about freedom of information, lets not take that away.
User avatar
abou105
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:00 pm
Location: a place in my head

Postby Leecherâ„¢ » Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:33 pm

http://www.BinSearch.info 8)

You don't even need NZBZone, either.

As for sites being attacked, BinSearch just searches the serves. Simple. Instead of being a site and saying ''hi, we host links to copywrited material.''
Ah, yes...
Leecherâ„¢
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:01 pm

Postby Fez » Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:38 pm

This is a historic event. The first NZB site to be taken down in the filesharing wars.


My thoughts precisely...

For one reason or anothe rI have always thought of Newsgroups as a separate part of the Net, and the news that they are being targeted is not very encouraging.
User avatar
Fez
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 10:26 am
Location: Great White North

Re: DVDRs.net Next to Go

Postby Red_Blue » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:10 pm

SlyckTom wrote:It was necessary to download hundreds, if not thousands of "headers" - or messages posted to the Newsgroup server. The end user had to then download the headers, and assemble the archive. The archive is a group of compressed files, which when assembled yields the requested media file.
Headers are not messages, headers are part of the message. Just like email, Usenet messages consist of the headers and the body. You do need to download all of the relevant messages in whole, headers and body included to get any files off the Usenet (plain headers just help you to locate what whole messages you want).

However, Usenet filesharing is in most cases paid filesharing. Basically, you pay your ISP or another news server operator for access to their servers. Free Usenet servers are basically the crippled version where you can't get much of anything because the chunks are deleted by the ISP at a faster rate you can download them all (or basically deleted so that no file newsgroup can hold all of the pieces of a given release).

This is a prime example of legal extortion, the copyright mafia doesn't have to show they are right, just "impress by the depth of their legal research" to force innocent and relevant liability coverage law compliant untainted information providers off the net. :(
User avatar
Red_Blue
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:35 pm

Postby Red_Blue » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:23 pm

I know this is somewhat OT, but if it's enough so, it can be moved to a more relevant forum.

Hollywood by the numbers
TSG wrote:FEBRUARY 28--Faced with decreasing box office receipts, fewer blockbusters, and a reduced production roster, the motion picture industry is facing several daunting challenges as it gathers this Sunday for the 78th Academy Awards ceremony.

But, really, who wants to focus on all that negative stuff when we can celebrate the lofty salaries, outlandish perks, and assorted other benefits of being a movie star?


Basically, remove half of the costs (the millions to the top stars) of making a Hollywood movie and you have removed nothing vital to the production. I just goes on to prove that demand and supply have a $50 million gap to fill per blockbuster which is currently exploited by a few people who could be entirely played out of the game should consumers want to put half of their movie money elsewhere some day, with no adverse effect to the rest of the industry, employing tens of thousands of people working at least as hard and getting paid like regular people.
User avatar
Red_Blue
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:35 pm

Postby Christopher » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:46 pm

Red_Blue wrote:Basically, remove half of the costs (the millions to the top stars) of making a Hollywood movie and you have removed nothing vital to the production.


Those stars that earn 5 million dollars or more a movie really earn their cash, even the child starts.

They work 12-18 hour days, doing scenes over and over again until they are to the liking of the director.
Some people say they get paid for basically doing nothing. I say, they earn their money BIG-TIME.

Some are overpaid though. One movie star recently was paid 30 million for starring in a movie that bombed at the box office, mainly due to their performance being sub-par.
I am not as stupid or naive as people would like to believe I am.
Christopher
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 9:43 am

Postby Roadblock » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:49 pm

As I recall DVDRS required a paid registration. Can anyone confirm that?


Yes, they did.
P2PC Admin
User avatar
Roadblock
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 10:10 pm
Location: Roadblock Manor

Postby MrFredPFL » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:55 pm

imo, a huge contribution to the amount of money people spend to see what are, in so many people's opinions, bad movies, is the cult of celebrity which hollywood has cultivated so successfully. look at all the timeslots on television, in the US at the least, which do nothing but feed off this insatiable desire of the public for ANY info about these people. i think if u replace them with non-celebrity actors and actresses, even if they are BETTER than the people they replaced, revenues would drop steeply - at least, until the new group became celebrities ;) and who knows - by then, the new ones might be demanding $20 million per film themselves :lol:

[/offtopic rant] :oops:
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15806
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Postby AlexanderHanff » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:59 pm

Christopher wrote:
Red_Blue wrote:Basically, remove half of the costs (the millions to the top stars) of making a Hollywood movie and you have removed nothing vital to the production.


Those stars that earn 5 million dollars or more a movie really earn their cash, even the child starts.

They work 12-18 hour days, doing scenes over and over again until they are to the liking of the director.
Some people say they get paid for basically doing nothing. I say, they earn their money BIG-TIME.

Some are overpaid though. One movie star recently was paid 30 million for starring in a movie that bombed at the box office, mainly due to their performance being sub-par.


I wholeheartedly disagree. No job deserves a militmillion pay packet and many many many people work 12-18 hours a day for a pittance.

In fact if they are working 12-18 hours a day they are almost certainly being exploited and their employers are in breach of employment law (at least in the UK). Forcing someone to work an 18 hour day is criminal in many parts of the world. If actors were lobbying to have the movie industry held to account for breaking criminal law by enforcing long days, I would have more sympathy for them.

I have no sympathy for someone who gets paid 5M for "acting".

No-one needs that sort of money to live a high quality of life. the money would be much better used dealing with poverty, unemployment issues, 3rd world debt, homelessness, health, environmental issue and the list goes on.

You cannot justify the gross disproportionate allocation of wealth in a world where there is so much turmoil and social strife. They are all hypocrites and none of them are worthy of the contents of my son's diapers.

Yes I am a socialist, but I would rather be an intelligent socialist who cares about his fellow human beings, than a rich, egocentric, self absorbed waste of air.

No-one with an ounce of intellect can justify living in a Palace when their fellow humans are starving and dying of exposure on the street.
User avatar
AlexanderHanff
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 8:03 am
Location: UK

Postby Red_Blue » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:08 pm

Christopher wrote:Those stars that earn 5 million dollars or more a movie really earn their cash, even the child starts.
How about the child actor who earns $150,000 by costarring with an adult who makes $20 million with about the same screen time?

They work 12-18 hour days, doing scenes over and over again until they are to the liking of the director. Some people say they get paid for basically doing nothing. I say, they earn their money BIG-TIME.
So at 45 x 16 hour days at $25 million total, that makes about $35 000 an hour.

Some are overpaid though.
So does this mean that there are actors who are hundred times better than others? Even thousand times better? I don't think so. There isn't any correlation between talent and how much they get paid, there are just as capable actors in non-Hollywood productions in other countries who almost never make even 1/10 of Hollywood stars.

It's just a matter of the studios having so much money that they can bid against each other to pay so exorbitant sums. If you remove that money, the same movies get made with the same amounts spent to FX/GC and all of the technical stuff as well as dozens of supporting actors, just no more spending in stars. Not that it's going to happen as long as people are voting with their wallets that they want to see these "stars" and support their lifestyle. The core argument is the same for other US entertainment industries, they could be viable industries just as in other countries by having half or less of the total gross by just being structured differently. There is always someone who gets several times fatter cut than in most other forms of commerce.

These industries are ran by companies with (presumably) competent financial divisions who could easily make the cuts and lean them down were there ever any need for that. Basically any threat to their bottom line is perceived only, it's not real. They are not going out of business unless suddenly people stop wanting mass produced entertainment, stars or no stars.
User avatar
Red_Blue
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:35 pm

Postby AlexanderHanff » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:18 pm

I place significant more value in street cleaners, doctors, police, fire services, ambulance services, teachers, community workers etc. than any actor (or other such grossly overpaid "profession").

These people are not stars, they are not superior beings, they are not essential to the continuation of life and society. They are nothing more than leeches, sucking on the life blood of society and we could very easily do without every single one of them.

If they cared so much about culture and art, they would not demand such ridiculous pay cheques and would act/sing/pay sports for a normal wage or simply for the love of it.

David Beckham has no value, he is not even that intelligent. He can kick a football and spend thousands on a stupid haircut, nothing more.

Mel Gibson is not some god, heis a guy who can read a script. He doesn't save lives, he doesn't educate people, he doesn't look after old people or do anything useful.

Dan Glickman is not some saviour of culture, he is a small minded man with no real value in the world.

I could go on...
But they really are not worth my time.
User avatar
AlexanderHanff
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 8:03 am
Location: UK

Postby JolietJake » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:50 pm

I signed up so i could discuss this. Guess i'm a refugee from dvdrs.net for the time being til things get sorted out.

Anyway-this was quick. I walked away for a while and came back and boom the forum is closed and a message is posted about everything.

I have to say i am just a little dissapointed. I had hoped des would fihgt it a little atleast but i guess you can't expect people to become martyrs. I also think he could of game atleast a little warning. Maybe this morning that he was thinking of doing this. Instead i come back from being gone maybe an hour and its just closed. No warning no nothing.

I do hope everyhting works out though. I don't know how much use the site will be to me if all relation to usenet is gone. I mean its what the site was built on to begin with. I can understand killing the nzb section since thats what the mpaa is pissed about. I don't see how writing a text post about something posted on usenet is illegal. Its already there,you're just saying "hey i saw this on that".

I ahve to say i hope these corporate whores burn in h*ll.
JolietJake
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:42 pm

Postby AlexanderHanff » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:54 pm

JolietJake wrote:I signed up so i could discuss this. Guess i'm a refugee from dvdrs.net for the time being til things get sorted out.

Anyway-this was quick. I walked away for a while and came back and boom the forum is closed and a message is posted about everything.

I have to say i am just a little dissapointed. I had hoped des would fihgt it a little atleast but i guess you can't expect people to become martyrs. I also think he could of game atleast a little warning. Maybe this morning that he was thinking of doing this. Instead i come back from being gone maybe an hour and its just closed. No warning no nothing.

I do hope everyhting works out though. I don't know how much use the site will be to me if all relation to usenet is gone. I mean its what the site was built on to begin with. I can understand killing the nzb section since thats what the mpaa is pissed about. I don't see how writing a text post about something posted on usenet is illegal. Its already there,you're just saying "hey i saw this on that".

I ahve to say i hope these corporate whores burn in h*ll.


By directing people to illicit copies of a movie/song or other "copyrighted" works, you are in breach of DMCA, as by doing so you are instructing people on how to circumvent the system.

Stupid huh? Now you have some understanding of how few rights you have (if any).
User avatar
AlexanderHanff
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 8:03 am
Location: UK

Postby IceCube » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:02 pm

I'm having trouble remembering, but it almost appears as though BitTorrent indexing sites are proving more robust then NZB sites. Two sites get cited in an MPAA press release and tons of other NZB's are dropping faster then Cary Shermans good reputation.

I personally disagree with the sentiment that this is the start of something big. The strike has already happened and what we are witnessing is the surpringly large domino effect afterwards.

Plus, NZB sites are just a site full of 'pointer' files. The users themselves utilise the servers to retrieve the file and I don't remember anywhere that the MPAA are going after them in this recent attack. The RIAA may have squeezed the identities of a few individuals via IP address on FastTrack or Gnutella, but that's about it.
User avatar
IceCube
 
Posts: 17079
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:31 pm
Location: Igloo Country?

Postby JolietJake » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:09 pm

IceCube wrote:I'm having trouble remembering, but it almost appears as though BitTorrent indexing sites are proving more robust then NZB sites. Two sites get cited in an MPAA press release and tons of other NZB's are dropping faster then Cary Shermans good reputation.

I personally disagree with the sentiment that this is the start of something big. The strike has already happened and what we are witnessing is the surpringly large domino effect afterwards.

Plus, NZB sites are just a site full of 'pointer' files. The users themselves utilise the servers to retrieve the file and I don't remember anywhere that the MPAA are going after them in this recent attack. The RIAA may have squeezed the identities of a few individuals via IP address on FastTrack or Gnutella, but that's about it.
Dvdrs.net hosted NZB files. Thats wasn't the sole purpose of the site but it was a large part of it. If we hadn't had them we might not of been involved in this. Since the only other thing even close to illegal would of been dsicussing things that were posted. Belive me when i say that far more people used the NZBs then read discussions on things that were posted.
JolietJake
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:42 pm

Postby IceCube » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:27 pm

Heheh, that's pretty understandable. I'm sure there are far more people out there just wanting to get the next release quickly, easily and securely then there are people who are willing to talk about it on forums, etc.

I do find it interesting how the MPAA says the site encouraged "copyright infringement" by hosting a catalogue. Unfortunately, I'm ignorant about the site itself, but isn't that almost like saying rotten.com encourages murder by posting gory pictures? I'd be willing to bet that they said this because they knew that this is what was ruled in the MGM vs. Grokster case. People who slice through the spin by the RIAA know that this is the biggest thing that happened by the ruling (that encouraging "piracy" makes you liable for copyright infringement in the USA - and not OUTSIDE as Nick would beat you over the head until you got it)
User avatar
IceCube
 
Posts: 17079
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:31 pm
Location: Igloo Country?

Postby MrFredPFL » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:34 pm

noooooo wait, cube, lemme get this straight - are you saying that US law does NOT apply outside of US jurisdiction?!? ;)
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15806
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Postby IceCube » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:44 pm

MrFredPFL wrote:noooooo wait, cube, lemme get this straight - are you saying that US law does NOT apply outside of US jurisdiction?!? ;)


Depends on their willingness to invade :lol: (jk of course)
User avatar
IceCube
 
Posts: 17079
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:31 pm
Location: Igloo Country?

Postby AlexanderHanff » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:47 pm

MrFredPFL wrote:noooooo wait, cube, lemme get this straight - are you saying that US law does NOT apply outside of US jurisdiction?!? ;)


US law applies in the US (oh and afghanistan and iraq)
User avatar
AlexanderHanff
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 8:03 am
Location: UK

Postby MrFredPFL » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:54 pm

lol sif question our willingness - OF COURSE we're willing ;)
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15806
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Postby Red_Blue » Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:08 am

IceCube wrote:I do find it interesting how the MPAA says the site encouraged "copyright infringement" by hosting a catalogue. Unfortunately, I'm ignorant about the site itself, but isn't that almost like saying rotten.com encourages murder by posting gory pictures? I'd be willing to bet that they said this because they knew that this is what was ruled in the MGM vs. Grokster case.
Yes it's exactly the same as claiming that ogrish.com induces mutilation, disembowelment and torture. Just discussing and showing it is not the same as doing it.

Just to refresh, the "inducement" in Grokster was:
    Using part of Napster's name and advertising to Napster users
    I didn't see Napster, Aimster, Grokster, Kazaa or anything else mentioned in the Usenet sites or any advertising to any P2P users.

    Providing tech support acknowledging infringing filenames
    I don't know if there is any evidence of that here, perhaps we will never know if the all of the NBZ cases are "settled".

    Getting direct economic benefit from the alledgedly infringing activity
    Well, Grokster got no "direct" economic benefit but basically getting any money out of being involved in business was ruled to satisfy that in Grokster, so if any of the NZB sites got donations or advertisement money, this one probably will apply.

    No filtering
    I think the NZB sites claimed DMCA takedown compliance, so this is the legal equivalent.

    Internal memo acknowledging that Grokster wanted to get sued
    I would hope so that the NBZ sites got smart and didn't leave those lying around.


So basically the only thing from Grokster that could be directly applicable is that the NBZ sites may have been in some kind of business and gotten money from sonewhere. That alone should not be enough for anything. But then again, I haven't seen any of the complaints, just short quotes from them by Tom. Maybe they have some new theories this time, who knows...
User avatar
Red_Blue
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:35 pm

Next

Return to Slyck News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com