Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Court Orders Lycos to Reveal Client
linumax writes to tell us InformationWeek is reporting that the Dutch Supreme Court ruled against Lycos last Friday stating that they wrongly protected the identity of a user who posted "slanderous allegations" against an internet postage-stamp dealer. From the article: "The dealer and claimant, identified in court documents only as A. Pessers, took Lycos to court in 2003, seeking the details of its client so he could pursue financial damages allegedly resulting from the allegations."
It'll all come back to music and movie piracy. That's not in the slashdot summary, but may really be the largest impact of this.
The Brain Institute, which represents the global entertainment industry in the Netherlands, said in a statement that the ruling will enable it to seek damages from people who illegally swap copyrighted software, music and movies over the Internet.
BTW - does anyone else find it interesting that the "Brain Institute" represents the entertainment industry in the Netherlands?
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Just what we needed. The Dutch music industry is thrilled with this verdict. They will use it to go after each and every P2P user, blogger and industry critic they can find. As if 'Brein' doesnt' have enough extortion power already 8-(((
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
the supreme court told lycos, 'go get it!'...
The dealer and claimant, identified in court documents only as A. Pessers, took Lycos to court in 2003, seeking the details of its client so he could pursue financial damages allegedly resulting from the allegations.
Scott McNealy to Michael: "Suck my Sun!" Michael Dell to Scott : "Lick my Dell!"
Honestly, I'm happy about this verdict - how is the internet different from any other form of communication, you are responsible for what you say period. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of "the big boys" telling others who I really am... but in some situations I believe it is warranted. If you owned a company that someone slandered repeatively online how would you feel?
LINUX ONLINE POKER: Linux Poker
Man, am I proud to be european.
Brain (or Brein in Dutch) is a government-appointed foundation which acts as the 'watchdog' of the Dutch entertainment industry. Unfortunately they get way too much power and act like the Gestapo. Paying Brein is like paying off the mafia for protection money.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
st4mp_h8r_2005: ur stampz r gay
a_pessers: >:-(
a_pessers: *sues u*
The institute is called "BREIN", which is an acronym for "Bescherming Rechten Entertainment Industrie Nederland", or Protection of Rights Entertainment Industry Netherlands. See http://www.anti-piracy.nl/. "Brein" is Dutch for "brain".
It's interesting that Lycos seems not to have argued that they never would release data; only that the standard they wished to uphold was that the underlying dispute must be a criminal action, not a "mere" civil suit.
[Quoting from article]: "...a sweeping rejection of Lycos' argument that personal client details should only be released if they are suspected of a crime and the information is wanted by the police..."
This may be good or it may be bad. Naturally The State will always insist on its right to get data in a criminal suit, and it's scarcely worth the bother of arguing over that right.
The Big Question is the right of private parties to get 3P information in a lawsuit such as is described in the article. Is a libel suit enough, or is a better remedy for publishing false information simply more information? Is publishing on a website enough of a libel to break privacy protections? What if the "libel" is published on a password-protected site ... but the password is shared freely? What if the "libel" claim is protected by our American 1st Amendment but not by whatever law they have in the Netherlands ... or in China?
I don't have The Big Answer but if privacy is to mean anything, I suggest the bar against private suits should be a tough one.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
The Dutch are notorious for not caring about human rights. Did you know that it's illegal to use racist remarks there? Like, if you use the "N" word in public, they can fine you or throw you in jail.
You don't suddenly become free of the responsibility for things you say just because you say them on the internet.
Of course, when the internet comes into play, legal situations can get kind of tricky - if I post a slanderous message while I'm in Country A, onto a server in Country B about a person in Country C, where does the crime take place? What if the statement is legal in one of those countries, but illegal in the others?
Game dev and music blog
I can't even go a few weeks without having to purge my access logs, and I run a pretty low-profile server. If they expect them to keep logs on things for no reason other than to persecute their customers for that long, then they can go fuck themselves.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
I speak Dutch, and searching in google for the seller's name and "postzegels" (Dutch for stamps), I found a thread on the forums of ebay (also in Dutch): http://forums.ebay.nl/thread.jspa?threadID=1000006 05&tstart=120&mod=1093984729600.
Basically there seem to be some complaints, mainly that the guy is too slow (reads his e-mail once per 10 days), he only accepts US$ and no Euro's, a complaint about conversion rates, and one person on the forum had his stamps delivered with some damages. The seller is a lawyer, so going to court is second nature to him.
If only he read his e-mail more frequently and tried to be a salesman instead of a lawyer, this would have been unneccessary it seems.
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
My attorneys will meet your attorneys in hell.
What are you sayin? That the dealer ain't so good at his job? This sounds dangerously close to slander to me, buddy. You are SO sued!
said in a statement that the ruling will enable it to seek damages from people who illegally swap copyrighted software, music and movies over the Internet
I wonder how they are going to _prove_ they suffered damages. In the Netherlands it's vital to prove loss of income due to the commited fact, for each individual case.
Is Lycos an ISP or a portal like Yahoo! In the later case, how does it know the identity of anyone?
We have the exact same thing in the US except that it's called the FCC.
Don't you have someone you'd die for?
Are you saying that the plaintiff has unreasonable expectations? How can the guy build any kind of confidence in his customers with you saying these kinds of things online? You make people question his competence! I'm afraid you might be guilty of slander, my friend. If I were you, I'd find a good lawyer....
BTW - does anyone else find it interesting that the "Brain Institute" represents the entertainment industry in the Netherlands?
Don't worry. Any plans to take over the world will be thwarted when he yells at Pinky during a worldwide televised concert.
Just like offline, If I call a radio station and slander someone on the air, the radio station and / or the phone company can track it if asked in a legal way, If I post signs on light poles and an officer, or servaelance camera sees me, the company can in court supenas the tape or for the officer to testify, if there is a technical way to provide the tape (i.e. it hasnt been recorded over) and the owner of the tape will not hand it over, that is contempt. What is differant online?
Goldmember.
Don't play the laughing boy. There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.
The difference online is that the Internet is not based in any one country (thank the Lord).
The Internet is just that. International. You cannot place laws governing it, and expect them to be upheld.
Sorry if this bursts anyone's bubble...
Brein is not a government-appointed foundation, it's a foundation which is set up and paid for by the music-industry. They act like they have the authoroty to prosecute just like the RIAA does, but they have just as much right to do so like every other individual. One of the founders of Brein is the organisation BUMA/STEMRA which is the dutch organsation for collection and distibution of royalties for the componists, bands and producers. Over here if, as a componist or a band, you don't become a member of BUMA/STEMRA you can't have cd's made. You'll have to burn them yourselves or you have to go abroad. When you become a member you'll have to pay quite some money, so only the real popular bands will be able to gain some money.
"Besmirching Rectum" sounds about right.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
"Supreme Court spokesman Steven Bakker said the court found Pessers' claim of having suffered damages sufficient to order Lycos to release the client's name and address, even though no criminal offense had been committed. It issued a sweeping rejection of Lycos' argument that personal client details should only be released if they"
This seems to be an all too common occurrence today. The music industry just throws money at the lawmakers, says something about terrorism and illegal file sharing, and BOOM! All of a sudden you can force companies to release personal data that no one should see.
This case doesn't even have anything to do with music, or movies, and yet everyone involved in the situation is talking about nothing EXCEPT music and illegal file sharing.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Sure, then either the Dutch state must be filthy rich or the jails must be awfully full: 443.000 Neger (Nigger/Negroe) articles.
[Falls into trolls trap] And of course your real American problem is not with the N-word, it's with the *meaning* of the word. You can change words from nigger to black man to afro-american to whatever you like, that does not change anything as long as you don't change the racist stereotypes these words are referring to. Change your society, not your language. Or your candy.
The Dutch are notorious for not caring about human rights. Did you know that it's illegal to use racist remarks there? Like, if you use the "N" word in public, they can fine you or throw you in jail.
Did you know that making a racist remark is against other people's human rights? Freedom of speech is not the only human right, you know.
If you're old enough to get screwed, you should be old enough to get hammered.
It is no longer government-appointed. Just about the only good thing our Justice minister did was removing the special powers Brein had.
Another key point is that they can't do mass subpoenas based on this verdict: Each and every one has to be checked by a judge, so there will be no mass suing of 10 year olds. Furthermore, we don't have hundreds of thousdands of dollars in statutory damages per MP3 shared.
And downloading is still legal. I'm not losing sleep over this.
About the ruling itself: Generally, in Europe, free speech isn't as protected as in the US, and slander or libel or hate speech WILL get you in trouble. This ruling is in line with the general spirit of the law.
Actually, that is not true. You can say 'nazi' as much as you want in the Netherlands. If you don't believe me, just watch some Dutch TV. Racism, however, is illegal in most cases, mostly because of the first article of the Dutch Constitution. This does limit free speech a bit, but I personally think it does more good than harm.
I think we're severely stretching the term "human right" if we're now to beleive that people have a right not to be called names, racist or otherwise.
By the way, thanks to the "Get the Facts" campaign, Microsoft owes Linux several billion by now. Who started this slander business, anyway? How can I legitimatly claim in court with a straight face that I'm owed financial reparations because somebody insulted me? Who gives a rodent's posterior? If one person's saying it and it's that extreme, it's probably disbelieved anyway.
If one person's saying it and it's that extreme, it's probably disbelieved anyway.
Are you serious?
So if I hate my high school maths teacher and say he sexually abuses children and all he can do is deny it, you don't think that would create doubt in people's minds, make people treat him differently and possibly get him fired?
There are good reasons for libel laws. Free speech should have limits.
How about: Ban Illegale Games?
:))
It spells the dutch word big, which is pig in english. And they aren't even trying to hide their corporate image: http://www.bigweb.nl/images/pamflet.gif
(more (flash) banners can be found at http://www.bigweb.nl/support_banners.php (I still don't know if this is just a hoax
But I keep my feelings about the Postal Service to myself.
There is not a single one among you Americans who have any idea how it is to have ones country occupied by a hostile nation. Imagine SS setting up head quarters in the White House. Most european countries with a WWII occupation history (my dad was a freedom figther and several of my family died in KZ camps, one of my relatives were the local Gestapo boss and was extremly hated for his cruelty. This is not Holland btw) made a promise that this would not be repeated and hence outlawed nazism. I fully support it and i also support restrictions in free speech since all countries have restrictions, even USA have severe restrictions on free speech (yes, i have lived here for about 10 years).
Stop bragging about USA and free speech, it's not more free than most other countries, it's just that you, the average American, believe otherwise because you have been told so all the time and that doesn't necessarily make it true.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Big or little does not change the rights.
I should be able to make any truthful or opinionated statement about a person, corporation or government anonymously. I have no love for Microsoft, the RIAA or their tactics.
However, when I make false statements that damage your business, livelihood or personal life, I should be held accountable. It should not matter whether I am attacking you as a private person, some celebrity, Microsoft, or the RIAA -- I should not be allowed to make damaging false assertions without being held to account -- especially if these damaging false assertions could be profitable to me.
Sure, a big company will have more money for lawyers to come after me, but they still must convince a judge that the assertions are false. As a small plaintiff, it is not that costly, and the presumption will be on the side of the small guy. Moreover, the truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel (written) or slander (spoken).
A rapidly rising problem in this area of anonymous online speech is stock scammers making false damaging blog and message board posts. They get it in their head that the stock should go down, or feel that they have been wronged, and they start making false accusations, and do so in groups, creating a nasty buzz. That will do nothing against giants like Microsoft, but can create a serious distraction and unavailability of capital for small companies recently gone public, and can cost people their jobs. Shouldn't these people at least have the threat of being exposed and having to answer for their statements?
Similarly, some cow-worker decides that you wronged them and wants to get back at you, so kludges up some false photos and email trails and makes sure your spouse/SO is made aware of it, damaging your home life. Shouldn't you be able to identify them and make them answer for it?
I like neither big government, big corporations, nor the excess power they can wield. But, I do not think that their potential power is sufficient reason to create a lawless zone on the Internet where anyone can libel with impunity.
Since you seem to think you have the freedom to say anything you like, why do you use 'the N-word' instead of the real McCoy? Afraid somebody might sue you? I actually am in the Netherlands, and have no reason to disguise words. I can say nigger or its translation, nikker, and much, much more. Hell, I can even say fuck or see tits on public television, if I like. You Americans had us worried some time ago about your freedom, with that ridiculus wardrobe-malfunction and the ensuing bruha. We called Amnesty International, but they said you had much more pressing issues than your Freedom To See Tits On TV.
I can't wait to see what the Dutch Supreme Court does when Lycos tells them to shove it. Will the US courts uphold their ruling that Lycos must reveal the user's identity even though no crime has been committed? Or will they tell them to shove it as well? It's always amusing when a foreign court tries to tell a US company what to do.
The onus of proof in rape and molestation cases is very high but I feel a completely separate issue from slander.
If you are molested and then accuse your abuser and their business drops off from the rumours, it is in no way the same as being validated in a court of law and having that perpetrator convicted of that crime. It's not okay that it's extremely easy to get away with abuse but slander is not justice for the victims.
Are you telling me something bad happens to *everyone* who's accused of molestation?
I think it's pretty tough on most people who are falsely accused. I guess there might be some people who take it in their stride and possibly many people who suffer no ill financial repercussions. However there would be many who would and I feel they should be protected by law.
It is extremely easy to make an untrue statement that will have tangible financial (and other) consequences for innocent parties.
I doubt that if libel laws were removed that the level of libel would remain at its present level. With no consquences I honestly believe many people would attempt to discredit innocent parties maliciously. And these maligned parties would have little recourse and often imbalanced resources with which to address the accusations.
can't say any more as yet
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
Dude, if you think racism is 'calling people names' then you need to *seriously* get an education.
Did you know that making a racist remark is against other people's human rights? Freedom of speech is not the only human right, you know.
You have NO right not to be insulted.
If such a right existed, you could not have been given
the results of your IQ test.
Anyways, someone stretching the term 'human rights' to also include calling out racist remarks/insults, is ridiculous. At least the Dutch can have their own choice considering the use of soft drugs... Something the world could learn off.
"...so he could pursue financial damages allegedly resulting from the allegations."
I think he means "so he could allegedly pursue the alleged financial damages (as alleged) allegedly resulting from the allegations."
Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
I suppose I'll here the buzz about this when I get into work on Monday, but does anyone know if they were suing Lycos (the US company, owned by Daum of Korea) or Lycos Europe (which is owned by Bertelsmann and based in Germany). They are two very different companies, but news sites don't always know this. (Remember the anti-spam screensaver fiasco last year? That was Lycos Europe.)
The news report just says "Lycos", but it's a Dutch lawsuit... so I don't know.
Well, perhaps the institute could be taken to court for false advertising? But keep in mind that the recording industry is attempting to have p2p and file sharing added to the most advantageous criminal laws they can find; this will allow them to use police to enter premises in order to seize and search. Plus by maing it a crime then when the recording folks pursue civil court action then they will already have a criminal conviction to bolster their case. I can envisage that the recording industry will argue that piracy & p2p are tantamount to terrorism in so far as p2p etc are taking away the rights of entertainers to earn a living. This totally ignores the money that the legal and quasi legal folks are making by exploiting these issues.
>Stop bragging about USA and free speech, it's not more free than most other countries
I am dutch and lived nine years in the US and I can tell you that the US IS a lot more free. The problem with europeans and the Dutch in particular that they don't realize their freedom is being trampled upon because they never experienced true freedom. They only experienced being mostly free. But the freedom is always restricted. Even in the liberal party vvd (stands for for freedom and democracy) you see people being kicked out for having opinions that mainstream Dutch disagree with.
I'm dutch too and i too lived in the US (for two years).
r ders below for instantance Mauritius and Mali, Benin and El Salvador but JUST ahead of Bolivia. The Netherlands can be found 40 places higher in this list on number 4 after three Nordic countries.
Your argument about political parties is irrelevant and bordering on dumb: (1) Political parties have agenda's. What party members say has to fit the party's agenda. If not, then they're possibly member of the wrong party and in any case not suited to represent the party (2) you're talking about ideas that are "not mainstream", this is a far cry from "freedom of speech" which was the more the issue here and (3) don't make the mistake of comparing the tolerence displayed by humans in a political party with the constitutional rights a person has.
But even if you DO go the political way: be sure to mention the McCarthey period in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism or recently: "If you are not with us then you are against us."
But back to freedom of speech, and tangentially related: freedom of press. Also make sure to mention that currently the US ranks #44 on the Worldwide Press Freedom Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Bo
Don't let your personal ideas on a topic be clouded by prejudice.
That is not completely fair. First off all, it's simply not true that one cannot make cd's without being a member. One can always have duplicates printed, it's just not very smart, because if a radio station picks it up and you're not a member of BUMA, the radio station will pay to BUMA for your music, but the money will never arrive in your pocket Second, a membership of BUMA/STEMRA costs you about 50 euros a year, which I do not consider as being an awful lot. If you then compose or play a bit of music (a song, a commercial, a leader for a tv show, whatever) and register that at buma, you get money per second that it's aired. For a commercial on national television, this is upto 50 cents a second. For commercial on a local tv station, this is 10 cents a second. As a commercial in the netherlands usually lasts something like thirty second, that means that even on local tv, you get 3 euros per time the commercial is aired. with those numbers, the 50 euros a year is very well spent. one can ofcourse critisise BUMA/STEMRA. For instance, it is very bad that they have such a huge overhead. The fact that they are not very open about what their overhead is, shows you how large it is. 8 bmw's infront of the office suggests that people are earning a lot of money their, while composers and musicians are struggling to get by.
Hm. Wouldn't kicking backwards and hitting your arse with your heel count as kicking your own arse?
Friendly Article says:
It issued a sweeping rejection of Lycos' argument that personal client details should only be released if they are suspected of a crime and the information is wanted by the police.
So if I want to find out the identity of whoever is writing his claims, I can just go to the ISP and say "this writing has hurt my business/feelings/whatever, give me the contact information."
What Lycos is saying here is that the information should go thru the officials, not just any random company that wants the user information. This isn't about libel, this is about hurting the privacy of an individual. I wouldn't want my information to be given anyone who asks for it, I'd like them to get a court order for that.
?SYNTAX ERROR
actually free speech is very well protected here, even slander usually isn't prosecuted. journalistic speech is pretty much untouchable for instance as is the free excercise of one's opinion. even hatespeech generally gets tolerated, to the point where a lot of people wonder why
so to suggest/say that free speech isn't well protected here is unfair. you might be thinking of germany where neo-nazi's are understandably clamped down on, but here in NL we've got a lot more free speech than those in the US for instance. (just look at the sort of stuff that can be said/done on publically funded TV/Radio)
This guy was a CRIMINAL who was being protected by Lycos.
Simple as that. You can't just go around slandering people.
I think we're severely stretching the term "human right" if we're now to beleive that people have a right not to be called names, racist or otherwise.
:-), and I do think it qualifies as "degrading treatment."
Quotes from the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:
Article 1:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 5:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
I don't think calling someone 'nigger' is "in the spirit of brotherhood" (unless you're a bro from the hood
If you're old enough to get screwed, you should be old enough to get hammered.
Don't let your personal ideas on a topic be clouded by prejudice.
Wel, I want to agree wih you (:-), but...
But back to freedom of speech, and tangentially related: freedom of press. Also make sure to mention that currently the US ranks #44 on the Worldwide Press Freedom Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Bo
... I don't know if this is a very good point. After all, that ranking only expresses the amount of freedom the press has in saying what it wants. However, Dutch journalists (much like, as I've been told, American journalists after 9/11) have a notoriously uncritical attitude toward the government -and politicians in general. It's easy to be left in freedom if you never push the boundaries of what's generally accepted.
If you're old enough to get screwed, you should be old enough to get hammered.
... I don't know if this is a very good point. After all, that ranking only expresses the amount of freedom the press has in saying what it wants. However, Dutch journalists (much like, as I've been told, American journalists after 9/11) have a notoriously uncritical attitude toward the government -and politicians in general. It's easy to be left in freedom if you never push the boundaries of what's generally accepted.
That's true everywhere. It's easy for governments to be 'liberal' if your authority is not threatened. That's why Western countries always rank highest in these lists. People are free if they only want to do what you allow them to do. These freedom rankings mostly measure how stable countries are internally, or -- in other words -- to what extent a people has the legislation it deserves. The 'War on Terrorism' is a good illustration of how this mechanism works: it makes governments feel impotent and they react by reducing freedom.
One of the main concerns arising from this ruling is the question wether it enables private organizations like 'Brein' to get adress-information of people who distribute illegal content via a hosting-provider.
+ verwerpt+cassatieberoep+in+de+zaak+Lycos-Pessers.h tm
I think this ruling does NOT provide an easy way for any Dutch private organization to do a mass attack on those who use hosting-providers to distribute illegal (copyrighted) content. One still needs to start a per-case lawsuit against a hosting-provider to let the court rule wether content is illegal. Also, the case does not say a thing about illegal content on private DSL connections etc.
The main argument that was considered in this ruling was a european (and national) law that says a hosting provider is not responsible for stored information if it can not know this information is illegal.
But the law does not say a thing on what conditions are necessary to force a hosting provider to reveal the identity of a customer.It has been ruled now that the accusations made were incorrect and harming to someones business, and therefore illegal. And so the identity of the poster had to be revealed. This is ruling is quite case-specific.
Question is wether a hosting provider _can_ know content is illegal if checking this implies listening/viewing the content of every file that is on their servers and secondly check it for being legal, as this would take an unreasonable amount of time.
Secondly, a hosting-provider need not accept any accusations that content is illegal, except accusations that come from organizations that are recognized by the Dutch government to do so. Brein, nor its parent Buma/Stemra are recognized. A branch of the Dutch tax-office is recognized for this (FIOD/ECD), but they need not (may not?) accept hints from private bodies either and they are not particularly concerned with the rights of authors.
For the Dutch-speaking among you it may be interesting to see the summary of this ruling:
http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Actualiteiten/Hoge+Raad
Other people may try their luck using Babelfish.
It's socially unacceptable, not legally. One make people not like you, the other throws you in jail. There's a big difference there buddy. BTW, I got modded flamebait, so maybe I wasn't even supposed to bring the issue up? ^shrug^
Generally, in Europe free speech is as protected as in the US, it's just that national governments haven't got their heads around it yet, and it takes an extremely determined person to take it all the way to European human right court. Even then it takes an age to get a decision and governments, not liking being smacked-down, tend to drag their heels over doing anything about it.
Case in point, curfews. The British government (the police, to be precise) decided to issue a curfew banning all under 18's form being on the street unaccompanied after 9pm, wether or not they'd actually committed a crime. It was taken, by a young person who felt it was unfair, to the high court which ruled on the police's side only because the person who brought the case hadn't been affected by it. (he'd not actually been detained, he'd been trying to get it overturned so he could go out legally, rather than going out illegally.) The judge specifically said that he would have ruled against the police if the person in question had been detained & taken home. The ruling was because the curfew was incompatible with human rights legislation.
Fast forward 6 months to halloween. Kids are a pain, as they tend to be at halloween. Chief constable says 'we're considering using curfews next year'. They've been told it will be illegal for them to do it, but until they actually get properly defeated in court they aren't going to stop, why? because there's no loss to them to keep doing it until they're told that they must stop.
The same attitude applies with restrictions on freedom of speech, it may be technically illegal to impose the restrictions, but a national government will go ahead anyway until someone raps them on the knuckles for it.
FGD 135
But we all agree that the notorious Ome Johan is still a teringleier and een oplichter.
[ No prescription needed ]
The equivalent in Portugese gives 828 comments.
[ No prescription needed ]