20th Century fox vs Newzbin

Permabanned
Joined
9 Oct 2009
Posts
1,524
Location
To die by your side......
BT doesn't need extra files for the purpose of error checking/reconstruction it has its own error checking built in.

I've had plenty of failed torrents and if they had pars they would have worked. I don't understand your logic of, it doesn't have a filesafe so it is better. I very rarely actually need to download the pars, they get auto-paused.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
18,022
Location
London & Singapore
Torrents can't be corrupted. Provided the original seed isn't that is, obviously.

Torrents do unbelievable amounts of error checking and hash checks that it just isn't possible.

If you've ever had a "corrupted" torrent then there's a problem with your PC drivers and/or hardware.
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
I've had plenty of failed torrents and if they had pars they would have worked. I don't understand your logic of, it doesn't have a filesafe so it is better. I very rarely actually need to download the pars, they get auto-paused.

Most corrupted torrents are corrupted because people failed to fix the Rars after dling from Usenet :p
 
Associate
Joined
9 Sep 2008
Posts
1,375
I've had plenty of failed torrents and if they had pars they would have worked. ...


BitTorrent does cryptographic hashing (SHA1) of all data. When you see "Download succeeded!" you can be sure that BitTorrent has already verified the integrity of the data. The integrity and authenticity of a BitTorrent download is as good as the original request to the tracker. Checking the MD5/CRC32/other hash of a file downloaded via BitTorrent is redundant

It's not possible for a standard BitTorrent transfer to give you a corrupt file (unless the original was corrupt). That's why PARs aren't necessary.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2004
Posts
3,792
0-sec FTP beats all.

I love this term, since it actually doesn't mean anything :p

"Affil Sites" as they are actually known are a lot of hard work to keep an account on, unless you are lucky enough to have access to a ratio:[unlimited] account or know a site owner.

Torrents are also hard work to keep a ratio depending of course on your upload speed or if you have a seed box.

All this talk about nntp vs torrents and how they are littered with fakes etc, put it into perspective. You are all comparing a indexing site with a public torrent site. Compare private with private and you will see content wise, they are both the same.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2009
Posts
24,796
The way I see it, the biggest advantage of usenet is that you don't upload anything at all, with a torrent you do. If you did ever end up banged to rights for pirating something, with usenet they can only really claim damages of what you downloaded, with torrents there would be a case for the hundreds/thousands of other people you uploaded to. That's before you get to stuff like SSL encryption and guaranteed speeds, with no throttling.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
18,022
Location
London & Singapore
I love this term, since it actually doesn't mean anything :p

"Affil Sites" as they are actually known are a lot of hard work to keep an account on,

Even sites/topsites (what is an "affil site"?) operate a system similar to BitTorrent with regard to ratio checking. If your U/D ratio ain't good then it won't let you download. Simple as that.

Therefore if a court wanted to prosecute users of these sites they'd have to go about it in a similar way as BitTorrent. I.e. the amount of upload is far more significant than the amount of download when it comes to determining a punishment.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2007
Posts
9,917
Location
Belfast
The upload ratio being a disadvantage isn't really an issue because there are programs to fake your upload speed and put it to whatever you want. Gives you total control over the ratio. Will get you banned if you do something stupid like fake an upload of 1Tb/s, but if you keep it within reason, nothing will happen.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Dec 2006
Posts
15,370
I think newsbin will be ordered to remove all FOX programmes from it's database. This is pointless though, because the actual illegal content is cascaded across hundreds of nntp servers world-wide.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2004
Posts
9,671
Location
Somerset
I love this term, since it actually doesn't mean anything :p

"Affil Sites" as they are actually known are a lot of hard work to keep an account on, unless you are lucky enough to have access to a ratio:[unlimited] account or know a site owner.

Torrents are also hard work to keep a ratio depending of course on your upload speed or if you have a seed box.

All this talk about nntp vs torrents and how they are littered with fakes etc, put it into perspective. You are all comparing a indexing site with a public torrent site. Compare private with private and you will see content wise, they are both the same.

Oh I know, I had one for all of 3 months because I knew someone from an MP3 group that helped run one. This was ~5-6 years ago mind.

SSL Usenet ever since. I don't like torrents because they ruin the network for everyone else with bazillions of ACK's.
 
Associate
Joined
9 Sep 2008
Posts
1,375
Just some clarification from Newzbin -

Server logs and user activity
Some subscribers are a little concerned about privacy in the light of the current litigation so to put their minds at rest we thought we would explain what the privacy implications are of our logs.

We are currently keeping webserver logs for a period which is sufficient to allow us to defend ourselves against web attacks. However we cannot tell from our logs what NZBs you have downloaded. At all. If we can't do this then neither can any complainant with access to our logs. Furthermore we rotate old logs so that they are deleted.

No request has been made for our logs during the discovery phase of litigation and due to the nature of the legal process that request would have to have been made a long time ago: it wasn't. They cannot now, legally, have it; and moreover they dont actually seem that interested either. The fact is this: they are gunning for Newzbin not you.

Bottom line:
We cannot tell anyone what NZBs you have been using whether those are for Linux distros, porn or just embarrassing lawful material. Don't worry.
72 comments | create comment law @ 20-02-2010 19:02 GMT
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2006
Posts
9,571
I'm loving Spotify at the moment and considering going for the premium service. Why can't we have this for TV and films? (720p minimum).
 
Permabanned
Joined
4 Jul 2009
Posts
256
Quite how this got to court baffles me. You can find the same info from a google search, are they in court next ?
 

mrk

mrk

Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
99,995
Location
South Coast
Google are in court for letting someone upload a bullying video to youtube - the LAW around the world has gone mad with backwards-ness!
 
Back
Top Bottom