Here's a nice contradiction and double standard! This almost made my eyes pop out! Hopefully the same won't happen to you when you read it; besides, eyes are hard to put back in one's head once they are out. LOL

Huh usenet never really tried it cause you have to pay for some of it. I should try it though.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

You cannot prosecute Usenet any more than you can prosecute the World Wide Web or Email, because Usenet isn't a company - it's just a convenient term for a technology and distributed network of servers that forward news postings using the NNTP protocol.

So how exactly would MPAA go about prosecuting Usenet?
Or am I misunderstanding your point?

it's basically about the fact movies and files considered 'illegal' by the MPAA are distributed through Usenet, but the MPAA doesn't try to sue Usenet for its contents, like it has Limewire or Kazaa.

Limewire and Kazaa are companies so they can be sued. Usenet isn't a company (or a person) so it cannot be sued. Usenet is just a distributed network of servers connected by Internet protocols, and those servers are owned and operated by different companies and people, so you cannot sue Usenet as such - it doesn't exist as a legal person.

I'm obviously not stating the matter accurately, but according to the article, there is a company, a guba.com. I can only point to the article in the link, then the other nested link from that article, as I read it and it did name an entity that could be sued and prosecuted.

The guba.com company seems to be maintaining a list of commercial movies that can be downloaded from Usenet, and the MPAA isn't interested in trying to prosecute anyone for such content being available on Usenet.

Guba.com however isn't responsible for Usenet - no single company is responsible for Usenet, just like no single company is responsible for Email, the World Wide Web or the Internet.

Content can be injected (posted) into Usenet at any Usenet News server that accepts News postings for a specific newsgroup, and that content will then be spread to all other Usenet News servers in the world that carries that particular newsgrop.

In effect the content will then be hosted on all the thousands of Usenet News servers around the world that carries that newsgroup, and all those servers are owned and operated by thousands of different companies and people.

So there is no central organization or company responsible for Usenet that can be targetted for prosecution or a lawsuit, because it's all decentralized.

If the MPAA wanted to go after illegal content on Usenet, they would have to find out where the content was initially injected (posted) and target the owner of that news server or the owner of the computer that posted the content to the news server.

So they could sue companies and persons involved in Usenet, but they cannot sue Usenet as such because it doesn't exists as a legal entity.

MPAA might chose to go about this in a different way by ensuring that it's illegal for a company to host such content on their Usenet news server, even though the content was posted somewhere else.

This would IMO amount to the same thing as making companies responsible for Email content that is passing through their mail servers, except that Email is on a larger scale than Usenet and isn't commonly used for sharing movies.

So MPAA probably thinks that this isn't worth doing...yet.

They (the MPAA) is in bed with GUBA IMHO. Otherwise, they would be on thier asses. news at 11.

By the way..I'm all for it. It's time to embrace the internet as a distribution channel and quit trying to kill it!!!