Quote:
Originally Posted by notjoe
It's not a snide remark. The post I replied to said that it was problematic in preventing piracy on the news groups. The fact is, that it is not. If news servers drop the piracy groups then that is one less provider dishing out pirated content. If uplink servers drop the groups there then all the down linked news servers won't have them either. It's fairly easy to spot the piracy news groups as they, unlike the file hosts that you claim, do have petabytes worth of pirated content inside of them. New groups might appear (which takes a lot of posting to for it to happen) but then they can be dropped easily enough. Also, They're easily found using index websites that create nzbs. They'll always have the latest on which groups have the pirated content in them.
And yet its more thing you're avoiding...A service, and for all intents and purposes, the ultimate piracy file locker system conceived, is "outside the scope" of you.
Talk to me when you actually know what you're doing.
|
Disregarding the fact that this project is Stop File Lockers , not Stop Usenet, which has been explained to you many times yet in typical fashion you choose to ignore this: let me explain to you in simple language why Usenet is so difficult to control.
There are lots of News Servers around the world. Any one of them may create and drop groups. Other news servers may choose to carry or not carry groups from other news servers. The current state of Usenet is such that most news servers exchange with several other news servers so there is not the hierarchy that your post suggests.
Some large news servers may exchange posts with upwards of 6 or more other news servers, so while one group of servers dropping a group may result in that group not being carried on some of Usenet there will be others that continue to carry the groups.
Your understanding of the current state of play of Usenet appears to be limited because you assume that one upstream news server dropping a group will result in that group disappearing, this is not correct.
Usenet is notoriously difficult to control, in fact the whole design of Usenet ensures that it can usually withstand censorship, just as many Usenet servers stopped honoring cancel requests in the late 90s, most news servers now will not drop groups just because an another news server does, in fact they will usually just fill that group from one of the other several news servers they exchange news with.
I suggest you go thump yourself with a clue stick next time you want to debate the workings of Usenet with me, I have far more experience and knowledge of the subject than you obviously do