this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
77 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54698 readers
480 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What stops Usenet from being attacked legally in the same way, aren't they straight up hosting copyrighted content? I've always stuck to torrents because it seemed more decentralized, especially if you use DHT instead of an indexer.
Usenet often uses obfuscation to hide the contents of the files, which defeats most of the bots which are only matching filenames to their protected content.
I also prefer Usenet since I can encrypt my connection, whereas torrents require a bit more faith in your VPN provider than I'm comfortable with.
I see, but couldn't they just sign up for a provider and then hook up their bots to the same search that you use? Or is the search obfuscated for you too? In other words how do they obfuscate it for the bots but not for the customers? That's what I never really understood - if the answer is just that the people running the bots are just too lazy to hook them up through the same unobfuscated search that paying customers use then that makes sense, but I always assumed there was more of a barrier since Usenet seems to have evaded legal action since forever.
They could and they will.