“They don’t need to delete the original msg they need to delete the message from THEIR servers this is the ruling so seven continents are irrelevant to the discussion.”

You apparently once again post nonsense. Here’s the problem. Any Usenet material is mirored simultaneously and distributed evenly across the globe. Thus, removing a message or a body of messages simply means they will appear again by next time there is a synchronization as long as those messages exist in any database anywhere on the globe. This is part and parcel of what makes Usenet function.

Any attempt to create blocklists would in essence break the normal functionality. I could go into detail about the ramifications of that but I suggest you finally go off and actually find out something for yourself – to start with it should be obvious once you actually get a handle on WHAT exactly Usenet IS.

Similarly, the “90%” copyrighted content claim is bogus as Usenet is, basically, the world’s largest BBS/mail system provider. It’s the other way around, that 90% of the content is related to discussion groups. You are referring to a very narrow section of usenet usually referred to as “alt.binaries.x”.

“am well aware what Usenet is thank you, this has nothing to to with regular email messages, email messages are private, these guys are hosting copyrighted files for public consumption totally different scenario. You cant simply take a ruling and apply it nilly willy to any scenario of course that would be ridiculous.”

Obviously you do NOT know what Usenet is. Usenet is the world’s largest network of mass email services. The “copyrighted content” you describe is, basically, a dozen to a hundred email messages where the copyrighted file is written as clear text straight into the email body. When you download those hundred mails and run them through an assembly program you reconstruct the binary file which could turn out to be a video or a game.

So yes, we ARE INDEED talking about email. That you do not know this merely proves that you have absolutely no clue at all what Usenet is or how it works.

Which apparently doesn’t prevent you from trying to talk with authority about it which becomes as ridiculous as seeing a renaissance clerk trying to debate modern computers.

I’d like to submit to you that if such safeguards as you describe were even possible on small scale then China would have performed those operations a long time ago. They spend billions of Yuan annually on trying to keep a lid on their own dissidents and – surprise surprise – for the same reasons I’ve stated around here a few times by now, those damn dissidents keep going through China’s attempts to censor, block and blacklist them as if that vast machinery was tissue paper in a thunderstorm.

You can certainly waste a lot of resources trying to “filter” out “unwanted” content and there is no shortage of unscrupulous software vendors attempting to peddle the next “magic bullet” to the industry. It’s a steady paycheck if you can sell snake oil in that way.

Which doesn’t alter the fact that every attempt to censor out or block unwanted communication has been circumvented and always will as long as communication is at all possible. The way to prevent Usenet from carrying copyrighted content is one and one only – legally block the existence of mass email groups in general.

“@Devil Again you show ignorance. I said nothing about email sig I am talking about a digital signature which can be created for any piece of digital information a simple form of this is a hash of the file all the way to more sophisticated implementations which actually look at the content and try to recognize it like a human would. “

No, actually, you are still trying to go by the Hogwarts school of computing – digital signatures are proven not to work since any re-formatting of the material creates another set of criteria completely unrelated to the previous one.

First of all, if such heuristic analysis would be at all possible, then any reputable antivirus program would be 100% effective (virus programs in general being vastly simpler to recognize in their actions than, say, a media file). They aren’t. In fact the best you can say is that the best AV programs are more or less completely blind to any custom job malware.

Secondly, there exists no computer centre on this planet capable of performing the type of analysis you suggest on Usenet. Even if (and that’s a very very big if) you could make that software run on every Usenet server located on the globe.
Now even if you could invent an AI – which is what the software you describe means – you don’t have the hardware to run it on with todays technology.

“On top of that they could build blacklists of repeating offenders to further eliminate the problem, they could do a lot, they simple don’t want.
This would not require unimaginable computing resources, and that is the cost of doing business.”

Meaning in essence that any spoofed IP would result in any person being able to blacklist whoever he does not like from very big parts of the world’s infrastructure. This has been hashed out regularly and every time been discarded as not only seriously difficult but guaranteed to be abused on a massive scale. That too has been extensively researched. Part and parcel of the problem is that there is no way to identify the “offenders” én másse unless you are willing to spend more resources on that problem than the FBI has to spend in trying to identify a few serious perpetrators.

Since you’d also simultaneously have to spend those resources in any nation where an internet connection is at all possible or where a server is located those “resources” you request do indeed very quickly become unimaginable.

Seriously, stop it. You obviously have no idea of the scale of problems involved in your “simple” solutions.

“Even if its wrong 33% of the time (no idea where you are getting that number) it means its right 67% of the time, how about looking at things from both sides?
Not to mention some have suggested that YouTube is intentionally not detecting as much as the could, to keep more videos up.”

The 33% is Google’s official number on erronously filed DMCA takedown requests. If it’s right 67% of the time then what that means is that 33% of the time you are violating the rights of the people who posted material over which they themselves hold rights.

Your argument is that it’s ok to be rid of 7 offenders by arresting and sentencing ten people, three of whom happen to be innocent and easily verifiable as such. No, that argument can not and should not fly.

“There are also safeguards built into DMCA, if you believe the notice is invalid you can submit a counter claim and the accuser either has to sue you or the content goes back up, why should all the burden fall on the victims of copyright violation?”

Good point, actually. I suggest that any erronous take-down request is similarly held liable for a lawsuit. Being a rights holder and having your material taken down is even more a transgression against your rights – on a far more fundamental level – than a mere copyright infringement. Since a victim of having his/her right to communication denied is a bit more serious than there being yet another copy of material already existing in N number of copies around the world. See how that goes? Don’t pull up an argument if that argument is equally usable (or even more so) for the opposite side of the debate.

Honestly…From what I can see you seem ot be an adherent of the school of What Some Bloke Told You In A Pub. Computers aren’t magical, resources aren’t infinite, and your idea that an expert/AI system running simultaneously on every server of a globally distributed highly decentralized database would serve to “fix” Usenet is science-fiction at best.

Once again, Youtube isn’t Usenet and your ramblings about digital signatures is at best moot. Consider that you’d have to download, PAR and then decode about fifty scattered emails for each file you’d want to diagnose and you quickly end up with that system of yours having to scan and assemble every content body in Usenet in various configuration before you could even have it make a judgement.

Try not to embarrass yourself any further by claiming knowledge about a fact when you repeatedly demonstrate soundly to everyone who actually does have a clue that you know less about the topic discussed than the average clueless luser making helpdesk calls because he can’t find the “on” switch.

Synchronization isn’t magic, software goes out and gets these messages there is nothing complicated here, same software can be made to run the messages through a filter. There are a lot of easy and complicated ways to do this from the technologies I discuss above to simply flagging anything over a certain file size.

They simply don’t want to because they know their business model will not survive without infringing on other peoples hard work. 90%!! of all their content is pirated material for Gods sake!

They don’t need to delete the original msg they need to delete the message from THEIR servers this is the ruling so seven continents are irrelevant to the discussion.

Its not correct to say its unreasonable, if you choose to be in a business which lends itself to massive infringement than you have ethical and legal responsibility to take necessary steps to remove the infringement.

I have addressed the limitations of YouTube detection in reply to your other post above.

Even if its wrong 33% of the time (no idea where you are getting that number) it means its right 67% of the time, how about looking at things from both sides?
Not to mention some have suggested that YouTube is intentionally not detecting as much as the could, to keep more videos up.

There are also safeguards built into DMCA, if you believe the notice is invalid you can submit a counter claim and the accuser either has to sue you or the content goes back up, why should all the burden fall on the victims of copyright violation?