[miki123211]

IA needs to do what Usenet has done. Have a bunch of mission-aligned but unrelated orgs (under different ownership and distributed around the world) that peer with each other, distribute all the content obtained by any of the orgs to each other, but that have no technical channel nor capability to distribute DMCA complaints and takedown requests.

This is (AFAIK) basically how Usenet piracy works. You send your warez to one provider, and that provider instantly replicates them to all the providers they peer with, recursively, until they eventually reach the entire network. When any of those providers get a DMCA complaint, they remove the offending files (as they're required to do by law), but they don't inform other providers that they've received a DMCA notice, so those providers keep serving those files. This makes it much harder to remove data from the network than it is to add it.

[pocksuppet]

There are only 3-4 providers because the system is spammed with hundreds of terabytes of new data per day by actors seeking to destroy it. They can't moderate the spam because the pirated data is all encrypted so indistinguishable from random data, and because moderation would destroy their pretense of not knowing what content is being posted.

[anthk]

Spam is dead since Google Groups dissappeared and most people just use non-binary newsgroups for high tech/culture talks.

[pocksuppet]

The binary Usenet is the one that Internet Archive would be like. It receives hundreds of terabytes of new data every day. Most of it is just random bits designed to waste space on the providers.

[cbdevidal]

I like it in theory but the IA hosts over 175PB of data. Wonder how many other producers could replicate that data.

[AnthonyMouse]

Suppose you don't have ten hosts that each have 175PB of data but rather a million hosts that each have an average of 1.75TB, and therefore the equivalent of 10 full copies. And then something that periodically checks if there is any given subset of the data with too few copies and makes more.

[aryonoco]

I don’t have hard data to back this up, but I estimate that plenty of main Usenet binary providers easily exceed that.

[topranks]

Usenet is a distributed policy from the ground up.

It’s centralised in the way you describe now that it’s only used for large files / piracy, but it used to me much more diverse.

[y3ahd0g]

So they should use bit torrent.

IMO personal security would only be improved if we diversified away from "the open web".

"Flood the field" with protocols and pre-shared key networks where we have to generate keys together in meat space, make it too expensive to operate the panopticon.

Everyone putting their eggs in the open web basket, gathering in that public commons means all it takes is one bomb on us all, so to speak.

[LocalH]

BitTorrent allows untrusted users (read: industry plants) to connect and slurp down direct IP addresses to swarm participants. It's an unanswered legal question whether low-level uploading (such as the percentages one would get as a "leech", connecting to the torrent and then disconnecting immediately after completion) might fall under "fair use" or "fair dealing" statutes in various jurisdictions.

US-centric here: I feel that uploading a small percentage of a file as a condition of downloading the whole thing may very well fall under fair use - most BT traffic is noncommercial, the portion of the covered work uploaded by "leeches" is very small and probably would be covered by the "30-second" rule often quoted in fair use discussions. The only really arguable point is the "effect on the work's value", but then again an average leech is not uploading enough of the work to have that much of a material effect on the work's value.

[mafuy]

In Germany at least, uploading even a single byte of content is illegal. We don't really have Fair Use here; there are only few, very narrow exceptions.

It is also not even required to show that that single byte was uploaded, your IP getting logged as part of the swarm suffices. The burden of proof is on you now. It was much, much worse than in the US.

While all this is technically still true today, a new law a few years ago luckily mostly blocked the path. It was badly needed, because the situation was horribly abused by law firms.

[defrost]

In Australia it was determined that an ISP bears no responsibly to respond to allegations of copyright infringement by ISP users.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadshow_Films_Pty_Ltd_v_iiNet...

Of course Telco's can choose to be involved, perhaps accept payment to lookup and snitch, etc. but for the most part a number of ISPs in Au just wash their hands of devoting resources to play connect the dots for others.

[mafuy]

In Germany, this was the case, too. So this happened:

1. Copyright holder files bullshit charges against the IP holder. 2. Police investigates and for this purpose gets the personal data for the given IP address. 3. Copyright holder gets personal data of the subscriber from the police. 4. Copyright holder aborts charges so police stops investigation and is no longer involved. 5. Copyright holder contacts the subscriber to extort money.

Police complained about the many bullshit charges, so of course a law was made so ISPs had to give out personal data directly to the copyright holders.

[numpad0]

Same in Japan. There's allegedly someone making big bucks going after bittorrent users, straining ISP abuse teams and judicial systems. Interesting that Germany has laws against that.

[IndySun]

Where is/is there a good source to read about this German uploading law?

Ideally in english but all is translatable.

[pocksuppet]

> It is also not even required to show that that single byte was uploaded, your IP getting logged as part of the swarm suffices

What if someone would release software that would connect to random swarms and not upload or download anything? Would they still be criminally liable? You could disguise the purpose by saying it's measuring swarm diversity.

[rendx]

It's a mistake to assume courts need "proof" for a ruling. It's totally sufficient if courts find that it's just the most likely. "Not guilty until proven innocent".

If you receive child porn in your mailbox and the package is caught, you better have a really good story. Like, prior documented proof of harassment.

In regards to your question, and Germany specifically: Media companies hire specialist lawyers. These lawyers prefer to sue in Hamburg, where the courts are known to be very media company friendly. It's just not likely that you ran some experiment and didn't upload anything, so you better have it documented well enough to convince the court.

[pocksuppet]

What happens if someone puts child porn in 100 random person's mailboxen, and does not get caught?

[mafuy]

Back in the day, this would 100% get you letters from law firms that extort money from you (usually around €400 to €2000). Failure to pay had a fair chance to get the case in front of a judge. You will have argue with him that you did it for fun and did not actually up/download anything.

If the judge does not believe you, expect to pay something like 3-6 months of income. If he does, you only have to pay your lawyer (the opponent will not). Back then, I'd say it was a 50:50 chance, provided you have excellent documentation and a good lawyer.

[pocksuppet]

That's awesome! So a media company technician can plant IPs and ruin their competitors lives. No wonder this country keeps failing to get a tech industry.

[simondotau]

> even a single byte of content is illegal

  10010110

Watch out die Deutschen, that’s the first byte of Super Mario Bros.

[mafuy]

Yeah, there is no threshold to how much copyrighted material has to be uploaded. Any upload suffices to make it illegal. If I recall correctly, the intent/justification was to ensure that uploading a single song, or half a single song, is captured by the law, but of course it was written in a stupid way.

[abc123abc123]

Woop, woop, it's the sound of da police!

I heard a rumour that this byte also exists in the Legend of Zelda! No go get em Mr Policeman!

[cortesoft]

You comment shares bytes with copyrighted content, does that mean you broke the law?

[lxgr]

Context matters.

“Here’s byte 0x67, which is at offset 0x729B1A38 of Copyrighted_Blockbuster.4k.mkv, as requested” is different from “here’s byte 0x67, and it’s the first byte of my text response to your comment”.

[miki123211]

See also: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

[mftrhu]

What colour are those bytes? https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

[well_ackshually]

IP Firms have automated bots to send mails to abuse@provider the moment they see you even getting a file list. My Hetzner server got taken down after an abuse complaint from McGraw Hill saying that I downloaded some dogshit management book by merely connecting to DHT.

Hetzner is in Germany, the server is in Finland, the accuser is in the US. The only way to win is to either move away, or lobby for your countries to stop respecting US copyright laws.

[fsflover]

Torrents in I2P allow fully anonymous data exchange.

[dvogel]

> US-centric here: I feel that uploading a small percentage of a file as a condition of downloading the whole thing may very well fall under fair use

This is not consistent with current Fair Use application. The TL;DR is that the use must be for a new expression that is protected by either the 1st amendment or copyright itself. I don't know of a single case where it has applied to mere distribution. I would be astounded if there is such a case because that isn't within the expressed purpose of the doctrine.

[y3ahd0g]

Ok private 1:1 wireguard and syncthing or rsync all the way down then

Softlink data to the appropriate mount

The options are endless and tech nerds can 1:1 help friends and family

Locking the knowledge into corporate silos is a huge security risk. The masses should be just as competent and informed so they don't panic

Minority say over the economy and government is just fascism. These people are not deities. They're normal meat and bone

We have processes to replace politicians and workers; we need processes to replace the rich.

Free speech is a circular right and there is no freedom from consequences of speech. They can face consequences too