The Pirate Bay Ordered To Block Dutch Users

Failure to appear in court... by CannonballHead · 2009-07-30 05:05 · Score: 5, Funny

... is a big deal in most courts, as far as I know.

Even for something like a traffic ticket, if the cop doesn't show up in court, you're let off... (in the US anyways)

Re:Failure to appear in court... by El+Jynx · 2009-07-30 05:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's a bit more interesting than that, though. BREIN was actually sueing the company that was planning to take over TPB, expecting an easier grant from the judge (which they got). This opens the door to forcing ISP's to block certain websites, something which BREIN has been trying for but has hitherto miserably failed at. This is all just a sham to set up jurisprudence to slowly swing the courts in their favor. I think I'm gonna go BREINwash their CEO.

--
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Atlantis-Rising · 2009-07-30 05:13 · Score: 1

Generally if you fail to appear without a good reason you can be found in default and lose automatically.
Which is a bad thing if you, you know, don't actually want to lose.

--
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 05:16 · Score: 0

You also have to be notified. Which they weren't.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by nitsew · 2009-07-30 05:18 · Score: 1

Actually failure to appear can be a big deal, even with some traffic tickets. It varies state to state, but most places will require your appearance for excessive speeding, reckless driving, DUI, etc.

When a driver fails to appear in court on misdemeanor traffic offenses If a person is charged with a misdemeanor traffic offense and fails to appear in court, in most instances the following will occur: * the judge will issue a warrant for that person's arrest; * the bail deposited will be forfeited and the case will be continued for the entry of a judgment of the bond forfeiture; and * the Clerk of the Circuit Court will notify the defendant of the new court date.

From: http://www.cookcountycourt.org/traffic_court/traffic_ticket/appear.html
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Lumpy · 2009-07-30 05:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

BUT, most courts require proof you were served with papers to appear at court.
Honestly the Judge is the jackass here. If they were properly served and responded with "we cant make the court date" the judge cant do this.
Otherwise, I could sue every one of you in court, and if you did not know of the court case, would not show up, and I would automatically win.
The whole story is not there.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 05:32 · Score: 0

The reason a the ticket will be thrown out is because you have a constitutional right to confront you accuser. The cop is not the prosecutor, he is just a witness.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Atrox666 · 2009-07-30 05:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's also a DUTCH court..they are not Dutch and do not own a Dutch business. This Judge is out of his juristdiction and can basicly go blow himself.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Zsub · 2009-07-30 05:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Not true. BREIN have argued that several pages where they put up the notice were visited by IP addresses belonging to TPB. Also it was the judge's opinion that it would have been quite impossible not to notice the media commotion around this hearing.
I personally find the latter point somewhat dubitable: why the heck would they follow Dutch news anyway, but the former point is to me somewhat more convincing.
One also has to note by the way that the entire Dutch IT-crowd has their panties in a bunch over this, because our Christfaggy government earlier announced plans to introduce a filter not entirely different from the thing the Australian wants. Many see this as an important first step towards that goal and a very large step back for our freedom and society.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by commodore64_love · 2009-07-30 05:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Nice try, but sending a letter which states, "We are not able to attend," is proof that you received the summons. Of course it's bad form to just not show-up. That's considered an insult to the judge because you're wasting his time, and the proper thing would have been to ask for a postponement to a more-convenient time.
I think what we're witnessing here is a bunch of arrogant people who don't realize that pissing-off the judge tends to sway him to rule against you. If the Piratebay took a different tactic, like your typical politician of smiling even when you're filled with hate, they could probably convince the judge to come-over to their side.
"Play the victim" is also a valid tactic. - Poor, defenseless citizens being attacked by a big billion-dollar corporation. "C'mon judge, we'll be smashed like bugs if you don't help us out."

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Failure to appear in court... by moonbender · 2009-07-30 05:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Both are EU countries. Not sure if that has any relevance here, IANAL.

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by commodore64_love · 2009-07-30 05:48 · Score: 1

That's like saying I can ignore a ruling from a New York judge because I live in Maryland. That tactic might work at first, but the case will merely escalate to the U.S. level and I'll be in serious trouble.
Same applies here. If they don't comply, then the case will escalate to the E.U. level. There's a chance the higher court might reject the case and refuse to hear it, but you're still taking a big gamble.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Failure to appear in court... by lacoronus · 2009-07-30 05:52 · Score: 3, Informative

From the English translation of the verdict:

2.3 From the productions deliverd by the prosecution it can be seen that de prosecution has tried to use the central organisation for summoning in Sweden but this didn't work. After this they tried a swedish bailiff which also failed.
2.4 In cases like this a judge can still allow the prosecution to continue if it's plausible that the summoned somehow still did see the summoning even though they never have been officially reached to hand them the summoning.
The prosecution sent mails to the email adresses of the prosecuted and the official owner of thepiratebay.org on 19 and 23 juni 2009. It's plausible the summoned did read the emails since the prosecution have received an email from 1 of these email adresses on 6th may 2009 in which the prosecution has told them they were going to sue.
The prosecution has also sent summonings by facebook and twitter. In these messages were special links to click on to see the swedish translations. Someone with an ip adress from the piratebay has visited this website. The summoned have declared to multiple media that they did not receive a summoning and so that they were not informed. The prosecution does not believe this.
...and evidently the court didn't believe it either. Seems like the usual level of legal skills displayed by TPB. First they have their heads handed to them in Swedish court, now the same has happened with a Dutch court. These people had better get a better legal team, because as it stands now they're being annihilated due to own stupidity - or more likely, by repeatedly basing their defense on a belief that judges are gullible.
I can't help but believe that TPB keeps making these idiot mistakes because they think they're smarter than the court. "Oh we never received the summons because you can't prove it, nyah!" "Well, according to the law, you should have, and according to the law, we can proceed as if you had."
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Animaether · 2009-07-30 05:58 · Score: 4, Informative

The judge can, and will, do this.
In point 1.2 the judge established that the defendants had written an undated letter saying that the defendants will not be showing up in court. In point 1.3 the judge established that seeing as they wrote the letter, it is ridiculous to claim that they were in fact -not- aware of the proceedings before them, and the motions for dismissal thus be struck down; after all, they could have either been present just fine or have sent representation.
Further, they judge accepts the evidence by BREIN, that they followed:
- the official paths of notification (point 2.3; going through swedish authorities, and through a Swedish bailiff)
- unofficial paths (point 2.4)
-- e-mail to the defendants' e-mail address
--- (the judge and accepted the evidence by BREIN that one of the defendants -had- replied from one of the e-mail addresses written to as late as May 6th, in response to a notification about this very case (again, point 2.4) )
-- e-mail the domain holder's e-mail address)
-- wrote to the lawyers who had represented the defendants in a recent court case
-- registered mail, containing the subpoena in Swdish) to each of the defendants addresses.
--- (the judge accepted evidence by BREIN, from the courier service, that the mail was delivered)
-- a Twitter post
-- a Facebook post
--- (for the curious: whether or not these are reasonable venues for notification has yet to be determined. In the case a defendant can't be found, the posting in newspapers and such -is- acceptable. It is likely that the above two are found to be acceptable as well)
As a result, the judge once again surmises (still in point 2.4) that it is not likely that the defendants were -not- (timely) aware of these proceedings, and most certainly -could- have been present, or represented, in court.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 06:08 · Score: 0

In reply to your sig: qemu and doxbox both have mouse/keyboard "grab" options (with some key combination to escape grab). You are unclear if you want to create your own program with that feature or if you are trying to add it to VirtualBox (I have never used VirtualBox, but I would be very surprised if it did not have mouse grab).
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Animaether · 2009-07-30 06:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Provided the ruling stands in appeals (and they could appeal all the way up to the EU courts, of course), you're right.. the judges can be told to blow themselves until the Swedish authorities hand down the rulings.
However, in the mean time...
- if they appear in The Netherlands, they can be arrested.
- if they continue to not block the Dutch, then BREIN may have a case for Dutch -ISPs- to block TPB as alternative means of getting TPB blocked.
Foreign sites have been blocked before - think gambling sites - based on Dutch law and court cases, so it's not entirely unthinkable.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 06:22 · Score: 1, Informative

Not exactly, if TPB doesnÂt comply, the case doesn't have to escalate to the E.U., as the dutch ruling is, by itself, an executive order in the whole E.U., so the demandant just need to ask the swedish system of justice to execute the order.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by corbettw · 2009-07-30 06:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

You're assuming that Sweden and the Netherlands don't have treaties to enforce each other's court judgments. I don't for certain one way or the other, but considering they're both members of the EU I'd be very surprised if they don't have something like that in place.

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 06:37 · Score: 0

The European Court is for settling disputes about European Law (not national law) between member countries, which is only really used for trading disputes. The Pirate Bay is already convicted under national law (their implementation of European INFOSOC) in Sweden and the case has as far as I know been appealed. If I were TPB I'd just say "Go fuck yourself - Your Honour."
On the other hand I would find it interesting for ISPs to go to the European Court and demand to regain their neutrality as they have originally been given by European law. IFPI have had great success in Denmark with forcing ISPs to block websites, even though it contradicts INFOSOC. I wrote a blog post when the first illegal censorship occured in 2006 (AllOfMP3).
http://gaffa.wordpress.com/2006/12/04/the-truth-about-ifpi-vs-tele2/
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Ghost+Hedgehog · 2009-07-30 06:58 · Score: 1

But it is still strange that Brein gets TPB banned in the Netherlands with the argument that TPB is convicted in Sweden, while the site is still up and running in Sweden. If TPB is allowed in Sweden to run the site until their appeal of the case, I would say that in the rest of the EU the site keeps running as well.

I wonder if TPB wins their appeal in Sweden, whether this Dutch conviction needs to trashed.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 07:18 · Score: 1, Informative

No, the same does _not_ apply here:
The United states of America is a country.
Europe is not a country. The European Union is not a country. Sweden is a country. The Netherlands is a country.
Everyone from the US please read the above lines repeatedly.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by isd.bz · 2009-07-30 07:30 · Score: 1

What? Cases don't just magically escalate to courts of differing jurisdiction.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 07:30 · Score: 0

True but it might be good. The excessive sentences are probably a very big reason for the support of the pirate movement where it exists. Their arrogance helps the greater cause more than it hurts them.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by jonbryce · 2009-07-30 08:02 · Score: 1

Yes they do. They just ask the Swedish Courts to enforce the judgement, which they will do as both countries are in the EU.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by citizenr · 2009-07-30 08:04 · Score: 3, Informative

Nope, EU is not one country, only EU law works in every member state, common law works only on national level. This ruling has as much merit as Polish court ordering German gun shop to not sell 9mm blank pistols to Polish citizens. Its illegal in poland to own one, but legal in Germany to sell them. Polish court has no jurisdiction in Germany.

--
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by GeekZilla · 2009-07-30 08:06 · Score: 1

My wife was served with court papers (for me) in Washington state while I was in Nebraska for an extended period of time (hadn't been home for over 7 months). I talked to a lawyer here in Nebraska. He advised several things:
1) I was not properly served and did not have to respond
2) They would not issue a bench warrant for my arrest (which I think was more because it was just a debt matter and not a criminal matter)
3) I was not in the courts jurisdiction
4) Sending a letter to the court explaining why I couldn't attend would put me in the courts jurisdiction and then I would be in trouble if I didn't show up.
This gave me great leverage over the creditor and I was able to negotiate down what they wanted to collect (which included exorbitant fees) to an amount just over how much I actually did owe them

--
Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by YouWantFriesWithThat · 2009-07-30 08:07 · Score: 2, Informative

did you miss the part where they are being sued in a country that they do not reside in?
Re:Failure to appear in court... by thisnamestoolong · 2009-07-30 08:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Umm.. how is any of this applicable in a foreign court? Does this mean that a Japanese court can just send me a summons for tomorrow and I somehow need to figure out how to get there? This is just beyond bizarre. What about national sovereignty? By this standard every single site on the web will need to obey every single local ordinance IN THE WORLD. This would, obviously, make the Internet impossible, as almost anything you do is going to be illegal somewhere. This would make it illegal to lambaste jeebus on an American site, due to Irish anti-blasphemy laws. It would effectively illegalize pornography. I really hope that this is not valid, or the Web as we know it will cease to be.

--
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Re:Failure to appear in court... by gnick · 2009-07-30 08:19 · Score: 1

That analogy only works if the German company was selling them mail order and sending them over to Poland. Polish courts could certainly tell the German company to stop mailing guns to Polish customers residing in Poland.

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by secmartin · 2009-07-30 08:33 · Score: 1

Actually, they sued both the current "owners" of TPB *AND* the company that is planning to buy TPB (Global Gaming Factory). GGF did send lawyers to the court hearing, but they lost anyway; as soon as they take ownership of TPB, they have to install the same block for Dutch users, and will bet the same fine if they fail to do so. There's more info about this, including the complete ruling against GGF, in the first article linked.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by lacoronus · 2009-07-30 08:33 · Score: 1

IANAL, but there is at least one fact that links TPB to the Netherlands: ns2.thepiratebay.org is in the Netherlands. I don't know if this is what made the NL court assert authority, or if TPB have more servers there - they used to be based there back in 2006, and tracker.tpb.prq.to[Google Cache] used to be in the Netherlands, but now points to servers in Sweden. (PRQ is the TPB's hosting company.)
So my guess would be that no, the internet isn't collapsing. There is something that links TPB to the Netherlands, and it was sufficient.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by commodore64_love · 2009-07-30 08:53 · Score: 1

>>>The United states of America is a country.
No. The Unites States is a federation of 50 governments. It could just as easily be called "the American Union", and in fact often was called that prior to 1900.
>>>The European Union is not a country. Sweden is a country. The Netherlands is a country.
That's funny because the E.U. website calls them "states". Ya know, like New York state, Maryland state, California state, Sweden state, ..... (Just something to think about.)

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Failure to appear in court... by AronHennerdal · 2009-07-30 09:03 · Score: 1

2.3 From the productions deliverd by the prosecution it can be seen that de prosecution has tried to use the central organisation for summoning in Sweden but this didn't work. After this they tried a swedish bailiff which also failed.
Not surprising since Swedish bureaucracy effectively halts in July due to vacations.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by lacoronus · 2009-07-30 09:23 · Score: 1

de prosecution has tried to use the central organisation for summoning in Sweden but this didn't work. After this they tried a swedish bailiff which also failed.
Not surprising since Swedish bureaucracy effectively halts in July due to vacations.
It would appear that the summons were done in June, though - if they sent the emails around when the other channels were tried:

The prosecution sent mails to the email adresses of the prosecuted and the official owner of thepiratebay.org on 19 and 23 juni 2009
It is also possible that the emails were sent as a last resort, in which case the summons via the bailiff had been set out even earlier.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 09:30 · Score: 0

BREIN have argued that several pages where they put up the notice were visited by IP addresses belonging to TPB.
According to point/paragraph 2.4 in http://www.scribd.com/doc/17846197/Vonnis-rechter-The-Pirate-Bay (in dutch) on page 3, the IP address was one of piratebyran.
The relevant portion:
"[...] bezocht door een gebruiker met een IP-adres dat wordt gehost door de organisatie piratebyran te Zweden, volgens eiseres de oprichter van The Pirate Bay."
which translates to something like this:
[the web page] was visited by a user with an IP address hosted by de piratebyran organisation in Sweden, according to the plaintiff the founder of The Pirate Bay.
So it's not strictly a Pirate Bay IP address.
-V
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 09:40 · Score: 0

From the English translation of the verdict:
Someone with an ip adress from the piratebay has visited this website.
Could you give an URL to that english translation? There seems to be a difference between this dutch version
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17846197/Vonnis-rechter-The-Pirate-Bay
and the english one you quote.
In the dutch version the IP address belongs to piratebyran.
-V
Re:Failure to appear in court... by lacoronus · 2009-07-30 09:57 · Score: 2, Informative

From the English translation of the verdict:
Someone with an ip adress from the piratebay has visited this website.
Could you give an URL to that english translation? There seems to be a difference between this dutch version
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17846197/Vonnis-rechter-The-Pirate-Bay
and the english one you quote.
In the dutch version the IP address belongs to piratebyran.
-V
I got the translation at http://drop.io/breinpaidforthis_english.
As I understand the Dutch text, the IP address did belong to Piratbyrån, but they are the ones who established TPB. (Note: Piratbyrån is not to be confused with Antipiratbyrån, the Swedish Anti-Piracy Bureau and copyright cop. Yes, the name of the former is a play on the latter.)
Re:Failure to appear in court... by dkf · 2009-07-30 09:57 · Score: 1

That's funny because the E.U. website calls them "states". Ya know, like New York state, Maryland state, California state, Sweden state, ..... (Just something to think about.)
They do use the word differently though, and it's a mistake to try to impose what you know about arrangements on one side of the atlantic to the other.
I've been to the US quite a few times now, and I'll happily admit that the various states of the US are more different from each other than they appear to be from here. But the EU states are much more different from each other than any two US states; there's a number of totally different legal systems in place, and it's often true that languages differ too (so far less shared media and culture). In particular, the Netherlands and Sweden have pretty strongly different legal systems (both use civil law, but from differing major branches) and different languages.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Tyr.1358 · 2009-07-30 10:38 · Score: 1

What if another cop shows up in his place? That happened to me back in 2005 for a speeding ticket. I told the magistrate dude (or whoever he is) that it wasn't the cop who pulled me over, and he said that it was ok because he was reading from the police log and his personal notes or something.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by commodore64_love · 2009-07-30 10:59 · Score: 1

>>>4) Sending a letter to the court explaining why I couldn't attend would put me in the courts jurisdiction and then I would be in trouble if I didn't show up.
>>>
I think you just stated Piratebay's mistake.
They never should have replied to the court summons. Just pretend it was never received, and declare (silently) that there's no jurisdiction anyway. That would have been the wise course.
I know in my case, because I sell stuff online, New York State keeps trying to collect sales tax even though I don't live there. I just keep ignoring them. I do not respond to foreign governments. No taxation without representation.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Failure to appear in court... by commodore64_love · 2009-07-30 11:01 · Score: 1

Apparently things operate differently in the E.U. than they do in the "American Union" called the U.S. Here if a New York judge issues an order, and the foreign Maryland citizen does not comply, then it escalates to a U.S. court.
Doesn't the E.U. have courts with jurisdiction across the entire continent?
What if the Swedish court refuses to enforce the judgement from the Dutch court? Does it create a constitutional crisis?

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Failure to appear in court... by jonbryce · 2009-07-30 11:53 · Score: 1

There is the European Court of Justice which is the final court of appeal for matters relating to EU law, but I don't think it will get there as there doesn't seem to be any dispute about what the EU Copyright Directive says.
There is also the European Court of First Instance which hears cases specifically relating to the actions of EU officials, such as decisions from the EU Trademarks and Designs Registry and anti-trust decisions by the EU.
The main difference between the EU and the US is that the US creates federal laws which are enforced in federal courts and the states create state laws which are enforced in state courts. The EU creates directives which order the member states to implement the particular law into their own legal system, and these directives are enforced along with any laws created by the member states in their own courts.
If the Swedish court were to refuse to enforce the judgement from the Dutch court, then it would go to the ECJ, but I don't think that is likely to happen.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Atrox666 · 2009-07-30 11:57 · Score: 1

All the EU countries have extradition treaties? Maybe, I have no idea. I'm in Canada and even with the extradition treaties we have I'd still tell a US judge to get bent if I got sued in US court.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 14:42 · Score: 0

Not true. BREIN have argued that several pages where they put up the notice were visited by IP addresses belonging to TPB. Also it was the judge's opinion that it would have been quite impossible not to notice the media commotion around this hearing.
I personally find the latter point somewhat dubitable: why the heck would they follow Dutch news anyway, but the former point is to me somewhat more convincing.
Actually the first argument could be argued that these were pranks from their 'colleagues' at mininova et al. spoofing their competitors IPs as they could reasonably assume BREIN would be checking their logs specifically for this.
As to the latter point they'd just have to show articles that appeared in Swedish newspapers, national news broadcasts, etc. What they really should have done is buy advertising space in national-circulation Swedish newspapers and serve that way. If they haven't, they're obviously "on the cheap" and should not have been granted the In Absentia ruling.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by citizenr · 2009-07-30 16:32 · Score: 1

That analogy only works if the German company was selling them mail order and sending them over to Poland. Polish courts could certainly tell the German company to stop mailing guns to Polish customers residing in Poland.
ah yes, just like US Court telling Canadian citizen not to mail seeds to US?

--
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Dan541 · 2009-07-30 20:30 · Score: 1

You go to court for traffic offenses?!?!

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Re:Failure to appear in court... by JCZwart · 2009-07-30 21:15 · Score: 1

announced plans to introduce a filter not entirely different from the thing the Australian wants
No idea why I have missed this in the news. Do you happen to have a link or so? Seems about time to write some MP's.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 23:26 · Score: 0

Are they really arrogant if they expect a judge in a civilised country to base his decisions on the law, and not whether or not he felt slighted by them? Surely that would make the judge the arrogant one?
I know how things really work, but that doesn't mean that's how it should be, and it certainly doesn't make anyone arrogant for not pandering to a power-mad overlord.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Hognoxious · 2009-07-30 23:43 · Score: 1

The US has federal laws and agents to enforce it. The EU does not.
When the EU passes a law each individual national government passes its own version of it. Each country's courts and police enforce it.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-31 00:08 · Score: 0

This ruling has as much merit as Polish court ordering German gun shop to not ship 9mm blank pistols to Polish citizens. Its illegal in poland to own one, but legal in Germany to sell them. Polish court has no jurisdiction in Germany.
There, fixed that for you.
And, incidentally, I wouldn't be that surprised if a Polish court could make such a ruling.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by commodore64_love · 2009-07-31 02:17 · Score: 1

>>> can't help but believe that TPB keeps making these idiot mistakes because they think they're smarter than the court. "Oh we never received the summons because you can't prove it, nyah!"
>>>
According to most lawyers and cops, "stupidity" is the main reason criminals go to jail. "Self-confession" is a secondary reason, and it appears Piratebay is doing a little of both. If criminals were smart they either wouldn't get caught, or if they were caught they'd keep their mouths shut so there's no evidence to submit in trial.
If Piratebay had simply looked at the summons and said, "We don't live in Netherlands," and thrown it in the trash, the Dutch court would have no jurisdiction and the trial would have been suspended.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-31 02:20 · Score: 0

Seeds are kind of on the edge of the law (as are spores). Now if Canada was sending pot (or mushrooms) to the US, the authorities would be pretty upset.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by commodore64_love · 2009-07-31 02:20 · Score: 1

>>> Does this mean that a Japanese court can just send me a summons for tomorrow...?
If you are stupid enough to respond to the summons, then you have agreed to submit yourself to Japanese laws. The trial can then proceed and convict you (although arresting you will be difficult). The smart choice is to confer with a lawyer, who will likely advise you to ignore it as invalid.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Espressor · 2009-07-31 02:26 · Score: 1

You go to court for traffic offenses?!?!
You must be new here. Er...I mean, in the US.
In the US you can challenge a traffic fine by going to court. So it's a Good Thing.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by commodore64_love · 2009-07-31 02:32 · Score: 1

My state originally spoke German when it joined the "american union" called the United States. Even as recently as the 1950s I had relatives who spoke German and nothing else, and I still live side-by-side with dual English/German speakers. Language isn't necessarily a barrier to unification as a single country.
I think you'll find in 50 years, the European Union and U.S. will be more alike than different, with the central government pulling all the strings. Example: Congress has told the 50 state governments if they don't ban cellphones from highways, then the U.S. will withhold money. Has the central E.U. government ever done anything like that to exert control over the 25 member states?
I recall that it has. A state (or country) is no longer independent in such a situation.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Failure to appear in court... by commodore64_love · 2009-07-31 02:35 · Score: 1

The E.U. system does sound better than the U.S. system, at least as far as keeping the member states independent from a central, dictatorial government.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Failure to appear in court... by moonbender · 2009-07-31 03:59 · Score: 1

Thanks for your help (and sorry for continuing the OT, kinda hard to get in touch with an AC otherwise). I actually want to do the confine/grab with arbitrary windows -- VirtualBox does have that feature, but e.g. Wine does not. Basically I want to tell my window manager/X server/whatever: confine the mouse movement to this box. Sounds simple enough, but I haven't found a way to do it.

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-31 04:09 · Score: 0

... is a big deal in most courts, as far as I know.
Even for something like a traffic ticket, if the cop doesn't show up in court, you're let off... (in the US anyways)
The prosecuter is allowed to represent the cop. The cop is only needed if there was something specific that this police officer needed to testify to.
Re:Failure to appear in court... by Dan541 · 2009-07-31 15:37 · Score: 1

In Australia you only go to court if you want to contest the fine, even a parking fine can goto court. Failling to turn up to court is not an issue here since only the person being fined can take the matter to court.
I misread the above post as, in the US all fines go to court by default.

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Re:Failure to appear in court... by citizenr · 2009-07-31 17:51 · Score: 1

"pot (or mushrooms)" are illegal in Canada so your analogy doesn't work

--
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.

Ok... so how do you tell? by Kenja · 2009-07-30 05:08 · Score: 4, Funny

How are you going to get users to take the How Dutch Am I test before accessing the web page?

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

Re:Ok... so how do you tell? by ickleberry · 2009-07-30 05:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Neuken in de keuken" does not mean any of the things listed there :)
Re:Ok... so how do you tell? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 05:57 · Score: 0

And Anne Frank is both 'a jewish girl that died in WOII' and 'someone who wrote a populair diary'. I am Dutch and I only got 91%...
Re:Ok... so how do you tell? by quickpick · 2009-07-30 06:48 · Score: 1

How are you going to get users to take the How Dutch Am I test before accessing the web page?
Easy.
Pirate Bay: "Welcome to Pirate Bay! The happiest site on earth! Are you Dutch?"
German Answers: Nien.
Pirate Bay: "You may pass"
Pirate Bay: "Welcome to Pirate Bay! The happiest site on earth! Are you Dutch?"
Japanese Answers: Iie.
Pirate Bay: "You may pass"
Pirate Bay: "Welcome to Pirate Bay! The happiest site on earth! Are you Dutch?"
Dutch Answers: Ja.
Pirate Bay: That'll be 30,001 euros for a day pass.
Re:Ok... so how do you tell? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 06:49 · Score: 0

You were probably adopted or something... do you look Chinese?
Re:Ok... so how do you tell? by TheSpoom · 2009-07-30 08:04 · Score: 1

While I'm pretty sure you're just joking here, it's quite easy to do a GeoIP lookup, which is pretty reliable on the country level.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:Ok... so how do you tell? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 23:58 · Score: 0

Quite a few of them had nmore than one right answer ... Theo Wotsit was both a film director and a fat bastard.

Hmmm by sonicmerlin · 2009-07-30 05:10 · Score: 1

If the court didn't provide for his travel expenses I think it would be unfair to expect them to appear in court at such an early date.

will the prosecution ever cease? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 05:10 · Score: 0

they seem to be getting cornered. I wonder how this affects their hosting provider.

Proxies, anyone? by Bangmaker · 2009-07-30 05:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

How would TBP know that the visitors were from the Netherlands anyway? As far as I know, there is not much to go buy other than an IP address, which can easily be hidden by almost any proxy.

Re:Proxies, anyone? by Tx · 2009-07-30 05:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

It may be easy for a nerd to install e.g. SwitchProxy, and knock together some scripts to automate the maintenance of a list of working anonymizing proxy servers (and by the way, any old proxy is not good enough), but it's not that easy for Joe Public. Unless they're going to pay for a vpn service, the vast majority of Dutch people will be accurately blocked by their IP address. And since accessing TPB is not a fundamental human right, the tiny amount of collateral damage will be seen as insignificant.

--
Oh no... it's the future.
Re:Proxies, anyone? by filesiteguy · 2009-07-30 05:24 · Score: 1

yes. this is a "line in the sand" type of ruling more than anything. anybody can use tor or other proxy to circumvent the ruling.

--
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
Re:Proxies, anyone? by MrMista_B · 2009-07-30 05:25 · Score: 1

Then anyone using a proxy will be assumed by the courts to be from the Netherlands, and the due fines will be charged, else face forfeiture posessions and/or imprisonment and/or penalty of being legally barred from the internet for a period of time decided by the courts.
Proxies don't help much if you're in jail.
Re:Proxies, anyone? by Artraze · 2009-07-30 05:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well, the obvious solution is to put a "What country do you live in?" dropdown on the front page. Thus you no longer have to worry about IP addresses and all that. Sure the users may lie, but that's their problem...
Re:Proxies, anyone? by The+Moof · 2009-07-30 05:27 · Score: 1

I'm not even sure if you're allowed to legislate what a website must do if it's not in your own country. Maybe things are different in the EU? (I'm an American.. and yea, I know that statement smacks of irony given where I live) Usually the approach attempting censoring the net for your citizens is to filter at your own border.
Re:Proxies, anyone? by causality · 2009-07-30 05:41 · Score: 1

It may be easy for a nerd to install e.g. SwitchProxy, and knock together some scripts to automate the maintenance of a list of working anonymizing proxy servers (and by the way, any old proxy is not good enough), but it's not that easy for Joe Public. Unless they're going to pay for a vpn service, the vast majority of Dutch people will be accurately blocked by their IP address. And since accessing TPB is not a fundamental human right, the tiny amount of collateral damage will be seen as insignificant.
True, but this is a crowd that's rather well-known for their ability to circumvent restrictions.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:Proxies, anyone? by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-07-30 05:55 · Score: 1

I doubt you could make it stick. One EU country can't force another EU country to do something like that, otherwise eg. Germany would have all nazi sites banned in France.
What they can do is force dutch ISPs to block it.. which creates legal precedent if it goes through.
Re:Proxies, anyone? by commodore64_love · 2009-07-30 05:59 · Score: 1

>>>Then anyone using a proxy will be assumed by the courts to be from the Netherlands, and the due fines will be charged
False.
Piratebay's lawyers would argue that if Dutch citizens are presenting fake representation (i.e. claiming to be from France or Spain), then those private citizens are the ones who should be prosecuted for counterfeiting et cetera. The website owners acted in good faith to the best of their ability to block *.nl domains and comply with the order, therefore they are not guilty.
If the judge disagreed, then just appeal. Any superior court will declare the website is not liable when a Dutch citizen falsifies his address to disguise himself as some other nationality, just as a store is not liable if you show them a fake drivers license.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Proxies, anyone? by corbettw · 2009-07-30 06:37 · Score: 1

Piratebay's lawyers would argue that if Dutch citizens are presenting fake representation (i.e. claiming to be from France or Spain), then those private citizens are the ones who should be prosecuted for counterfeiting et cetera.
Yeah, but that would require them to show up in court first.

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:Proxies, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 06:57 · Score: 0

How would TBP know that the visitors were from the Netherlands anyway? As far as I know, there is not much to go buy other than an IP address, which can easily be hidden by almost any proxy.
You say that like the court understands or cares about the details of their order.
Re:Proxies, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 09:40 · Score: 0

There are no dropdown boxes in my bt client. And no, I am not visiting the TPB front page, nor have I any need for it.

Failure to appear is an insult by cdrguru · 2009-07-30 05:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

The judge was clearly pissed off that nobody showed up. If you can't make it, you at least have an attorney put in an appearance. When nobody shows up there isn't much you can do and the judge is going to be pissed off. It is like you are questioning the validity of the court.

And that is a really bad beginning to something you would like to win.

Re:Failure to appear is an insult by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 05:16 · Score: 0

Yeah, generally not showing up ensures you'll loose and pisses off judges as it wastes their time.
However, what does a fine/summons from another country really mean? I could care less if I get a summons from another country and their ability to collect isn't really there.
Re:Failure to appear is an insult by hattig · 2009-07-30 05:29 · Score: 1

Interestingly, the news came as a total surprise to Fredrik, Gottfrid and Peter who said they received no official summons and were not aware of the case.
From one of the linked articles that you read.
Re:Failure to appear is an insult by CorporateSuit · 2009-07-30 05:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Hello Friend,

This is an order to appear before the Nigerian High Court for fraud charges that have been perpetrated against you. I am a widow and also the judge of the court and have asked that you appear to prosecute the man who stole your identity. The fine for that in Nigeria is $600,000,000 (SIX HUNDRED MILLION US DOLLARS) and if you appear in court, we will award you 1% of the damages, which is $6,000,000 (SIX MILLION US DOLLARS) as a token of thanks for your time and honor to justice. Please call the number below in order to verify your plans to assist us with this trial.

God Bless,
Frank Liu Xiong
+34.37.342.34209
866 Muskrat Way
Habubajab
Nigeria

--
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Re:Failure to appear is an insult by Dahamma · 2009-07-30 06:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

The validity of the court SHOULD be questioned! I mean, they gave summons via *Twitter*! What kind of a kangaroo court is that?
Besides, it's a Dutch court asking a Swedish citizen to appear regarding a Swedish website. If you received a "summons" from a Chinese court to appear for violating their demands that you block all of their citizens from viewing your website, would you appear?
Re:Failure to appear is an insult by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 06:23 · Score: 0

it's a scam! that phone number is country code +34, which is spain.
Re:Failure to appear is an insult by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2009-07-30 07:38 · Score: 1

and how, pray tell, do you suggest that you 'have an attorney put in an appearance' in a foreign court? It's hard (and expensive) enough to engage an attorney in your own country, let alone in another country 100s of miles away where they speak a different language.
No, writing a polite letter to explain that you won't be able to fullfil their totally unreasonable demand for an appearance is quite acceptable, and any judge who thinks otherwise has a major superiority complex.

--
FGD 135
Re:Failure to appear is an insult by funkatron · 2009-07-30 08:58 · Score: 1

"It is like you are questioning the validity of the court."
If the court does stuff like this then what's wrong with questioning its validity?

--
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Re:Failure to appear is an insult by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 14:55 · Score: 0

I don't know why this is modded funny. Well, I do. But if it was worded differently:

Dear Sir,
This is to inform you that you have been found guilty in absentia before the Mildovian High Court for fraud charges that have been perpetrated against the widow of former Nigerian official Frank Liu Xiong. You have been fined $600,000,000 (SIX HUNDRED MILLION US DOLLARS) in punitive damages. Based on mutual legal agreements between the United States of America and the Republic of Mildovia, you can expect a collector at your door any time now.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Then it sounds suddenly pretty scary...

Court ruling in english by SRabbelier · 2009-07-30 05:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Remcokatz on twitter was nice enough to translate the verdict into english and put the result on.

Netherlands Antilles Residents? by eldavojohn · 2009-07-30 05:12 · Score: 2, Informative

In a totally unexpected ruling, a Dutch court has decided that The Pirate Bay should block visitors from the Netherlands within 10 days or face a fine of â30,000 per defendant per day.

What about residents on islands like Sint Maartin in the Netherlands Antilles? Blocking by IP address could get a little more complicated considering the Northern half of that island is French.

--
My work here is dung.

I'm amazed... by benjfowler · 2009-07-30 05:13 · Score: 1, Flamebait

... at the vast resources the record and movie companies are pouring into their litigation jihad against TPB. Good lawyers don't exactly grow on trees.

Clearly, they see piracy -- as a political movement -- as an existential threat to their business, and are prepared to do absolutely anything to kill it.

Reckon that the record companies would engage in outright criminality to fight their enemies? Given their penchant for suing defenceless, computer-illiterate single mums and kids, there's definitely a whiff of Big Tobacco or United Fruit there...

Re:I'm amazed... by benjfowler · 2009-07-30 05:33 · Score: 1

Somebody needs a hug.
BTW, you're probably thinking of John Galt. Nice try anyway.
Re:I'm amazed... by groslyunderpaid · 2009-07-30 05:54 · Score: 1

Do you drive above 65mph in a 65mph zone?
Re:I'm amazed... by HeronBlademaster · 2009-07-30 06:06 · Score: 1

yes because a computer illiterate mom, who is not illiterate enough to use the computer, failed to reason that downloading and sharing music or whatever type of data files for FREE is illegal.
It took quite a bit of explaining to get my sister (who is only somewhat computer literate) to understand why downloading music via filesharing networks is illegal.
To a lot of people, if it's easy to download, it must be legal - and if it's free, so much the better. After all, they believe, if it weren't legal, it wouldn't be available!
Feel free to believe everyone else has a good understanding of the internet and the legal system; as for me, I just correct misconceptions as I find them.
Re:I'm amazed... by an+unsound+mind · 2009-07-30 06:16 · Score: 1

Y'know, there are plentiful things you can download and share for free.
Ever heard of Creative Commons for example?
Re:I'm amazed... by cdrguru · 2009-07-30 07:34 · Score: 1

Yes, but none of the really interesting, popular things are licensed that way.
Of course, as pointed out by others, quite a few people just don't understand all the complexity of licensing and law breaking. They see it can be done, can be done very easily and nobody is doing anything to stop them. Therefore, it must be legal. And you get free stuff.
Re:I'm amazed... by cdrguru · 2009-07-30 07:39 · Score: 1

Why bother trying to educate anyone in this manner? Today in schools it is basically taught by both the teachers and fellow students how to pirate.
Of course, nobody is saying "Psst, this is illegal but you get free stuff this way." It is a lot more like "Look at the cultural riches that are here for the taking, all free." So little Johnny comes home to try out his newfound knowledge of downloading stuff from the Internet. Mommy looks on and smiles happily that her son is so very clever that he knows how to do this. Then she asks him to download some music that she would like as well.
This has been going on in one form or another since 1995. With software it has been going on since 1983. Trying to stop it now is like trying to stop a tsunami with a teacup.
Re:I'm amazed... by HeronBlademaster · 2009-07-30 07:42 · Score: 1

Since when have teachers in public schools shown students how to download music? Friends, sure, but teachers?
And I bother trying to educate people so that they don't end up getting one of the RIAA's $5000 extortion letters.
Re:I'm amazed... by Jedi+Alec · 2009-07-30 20:01 · Score: 1

I recall my physics teacher in highschool bringing over some Bottom tapes at the end of the year.
I wonder how many copyrights laws he violated with his public showing...
We ignore copyright law left, right and center. The media corps, even though making money all over the place, feel they have to make a fuss so they can make more money. Who knows, maybe they will piss enough people off in the long run.

--

People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.

They should refuse by bogaboga · 2009-07-30 05:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

The Pirate Bay should refuse to heed that request/order on grounds that it is undemocratic to discriminate against users on the basis of religion, ethnicity, nationality or otherwise. Who can argue against that?

Re:They should refuse by TubeSteak · 2009-07-30 07:41 · Score: 1

The Pirate Bay should refuse to heed that request/order on grounds that it is undemocratic to discriminate against users on the basis of religion, ethnicity, nationality or otherwise. Who can argue against that?
That's a stupid argument.
The Netherlands are still a sovereign State with their own laws.
You can't exactly argue that it's undemocratic to stop violating one set of laws because other countries 'allow' it.
BREIN argued that TPB's ongoing actions are causing damages.
The Dutch Court agreed and ordered TPB to cease and desist from the damaging action.
This concept is fairly consistent wherever you go.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:They should refuse by CWRUisTakingMyMoney · 2009-07-30 08:51 · Score: 1

Who can argue against that?

Probably a corporate-backed lawyer arguing in front of a friendly, corporate-backed judge. Quite successfully, I imagine.

--
Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
Re:They should refuse by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 09:24 · Score: 0

Holland happens to be socialist, I doubt appealing to democracy will do any good there.

What we need to do ... by Archangel+Michael · 2009-07-30 05:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

What we need to do, is get a US judge to order the Dutch Judge to over turn the ruling or face a fine of $100,000(US) for every Dutch user that is prevented from accessing the Pirate Bay. ...

On a side note, does the Judge realize that a simple proxy server can bypass his ruling? There is NO WAY to enforce such a stupid ruling. The Technically Illiterate should not be making what amounts to a new law regarding Technological issues.

This whole thing would be silly if the pointy headed elites weren't involved. Is it me, or are they (pointy headed elites) some of the stupidest people on the planet or what?

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.

Re:What we need to do ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 05:30 · Score: 0

Ah, but there's a foolproof way to implement this: just ask on the front page "are you dutch"?

Proxies can't get around that, my friend! And no false-positives either! Of course, dutch citizens may lie, but that's a matter for dutch law enforcement to deal with, not TBP.
Re:What we need to do ... by MrMista_B · 2009-07-30 05:32 · Score: 0, Redundant

A simple proxy server can /not/ bypass his ruling, and will do /nothing/ to prevent enforcement of the ruling.
Anyone using a proxy will be assumed by the courts to be from the Netherlands, and the due fines will be charged, else face forfeiture posessions and/or imprisonment and/or penalty of being legally barred from the internet for a period of time decided by the courts.
Proxies don't help much if you're in jail.
Re:What we need to do ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 05:34 · Score: 0

They should add "are you Dutch?" quiz at their front page. If they select "yes", it goes to page X.
I think that solution is the best there is out there.
Re:What we need to do ... by rdavidson3 · 2009-07-30 05:39 · Score: 1

A couple of months ago, I would've argued that joe-six-pack wouldn't know what a proxy-server is and how to use it, but after seeing what was happening in Iran over the last couple of months I think maybe joe-six-pack is more web savvy than I gave him credit for.

Could the netherlands follow Iran's footsteps and show that the Judge doesn't get it?
Re:What we need to do ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 05:58 · Score: 0

^ LOL
Re:What we need to do ... by Plunky · 2009-07-30 06:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

A couple of months ago, I would've argued that joe-six-pack wouldn't know what a proxy-server is and how to use it, but after seeing what was happening in Iran over the last couple of months I think maybe joe-six-pack is more web savvy than I gave him credit for.
In the UK, I believe most children are educated by their fellows about proxies because the school administrators block all kinds of chat servers that they need to access all the time.
Re:What we need to do ... by Thiez · 2009-07-30 06:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Please stop repeating http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1320677&cid=28884515 yourself.
Re:What we need to do ... by Threni · 2009-07-30 07:09 · Score: 1

> A couple of months ago, I would've argued that joe-six-pack wouldn't know what a proxy-server is and how to use it, but after
> seeing what was happening in Iran over the last couple of months I think maybe joe-six-pack is more web savvy than I gave him
> credit for.
Those weren't Americans, though, and their freedom depends on things such as access to information. Joe Six-pack still can't work out how to double click, and will instead crack open another beer and watch Gladiator or something.
Re:What we need to do ... by rdavidson3 · 2009-07-30 07:22 · Score: 1

One thing that bugged me about the Iranian proxy thing is that why didn't the Iranian gov't block out all content to the outside world except for IPs on a whitelist instead of continuously adding to a blacklist. This would've taken care of the people hitting external proxies.
Re:What we need to do ... by Ant+P. · 2009-07-30 07:26 · Score: 1

They also blocked pages by substring matching in my school. Really helpful when you're in a java class and trying to access a page containing the word "parse". Seriously.
Re:What we need to do ... by MagicM · 2009-07-30 08:36 · Score: 2, Informative

The Technically Illiterate should not be making what amounts to a new law
The Netherlands does not use common law but instead uses civil law, where: "laws are written into a collection, codified, and not determined [...] by judges".
Re:What we need to do ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 08:46 · Score: 0

I can't believe they would make such a clbuttic mistake!
Re:What we need to do ... by selven · 2009-07-30 14:27 · Score: 1

The Netherlands [...] use common law [...] where "laws are written into a collection [...] by judges."

To dutch users by jerep · 2009-07-30 05:15 · Score: 3, Funny

you are now required to use a proxy to access our website, we apologize for the inconvenience.

--
Do you D?

Legal? by sanosuke001 · 2009-07-30 05:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Do they even live in the Netherlands? Are their servers in the Netherlands? If not, why should they care what they want them to do?

--
-SaNo

Re:Legal? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 05:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

They should not care. By international laws the location of the servers ("service") defines the laws and the (location of) court used to settle disputes. The only other route for IP related issues is by using WTO, which is extremely unlikely (requires actual political will from top brass).
Re:Legal? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 05:27 · Score: 0

Exactly. In what way are the guys behind The Pirate Bay forced to comply with this? Why don't they just fire away one of their standard "We are Swedish. You are not. Sucks to be you."-emails?
Re:Legal? by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-07-30 05:58 · Score: 1

In theory it could be bounced to the EU court, but that moves at the speed of a glacier.. the *AA will have crumbled to dust before the lawyers have even got as far as the 50th volume of the ruling...
Re:Legal? by Important+Remark · 2009-07-30 06:01 · Score: 0

The server is not the issue. The judge ruled that copyright infringement is made (also) in the netherlands, and that TPB act as a broker to that copyright infringement. Since TPB didn't even bother to contradict that... they lost. Since they didn't even gave the judge a chance to ask them weather blocking dutch access was possible or not, they lost on that one too. Now it is _their_ problem how to obey with that. Not showing up is just a stupid strategy...
Re:Legal? by Repossessed · 2009-07-30 06:04 · Score: 1

IIRC Switzerland isn't part of the EU.

--
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
Re:Legal? by Repossessed · 2009-07-30 06:07 · Score: 1

Also, /. really needs a delete key, since TPB is based out of Sweden.

--
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
Re:Legal? by Repossessed · 2009-07-30 06:15 · Score: 1

No, its a sound strategy. As long as they never set foot in the Netherlands no ruling can possibly hurt them, do to being completely unenforceable.
The dumbest thing they could possibly do is show up so that the judge can order them detained until they comply.

--
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
Re:Legal? by lacoronus · 2009-07-30 06:17 · Score: 2, Informative

Are their servers in the Netherlands?
I believe they still have some servers there. Not the main ones, but they do have a presence in the Netherlands (trackers?). It started when they were raided way back in '06 (?) and had to move the whole operation there. Since then they moved back to Sweden, but I vaguely recall them still having some hardware there.
ns2.thepiratebay.org is in the Netherlands, for example.
Re:Legal? by Important+Remark · 2009-07-30 06:41 · Score: 1

It sounds nice but it is absolutely untrue. European law is NOT copied from old western movies..
And it would be very strange to be detained by a civil court. I don't think they do that.
What strikes me mostly as odd is that TPB could probably have gotten top-notch lawyers to represent them for free, as this is such a high profile case.

Isn't there an easy solution to this? by Hojima · 2009-07-30 05:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

Put up a page for all Dutch users saying that they have been banned, then provide links on how to circumvent the ban. Any lawyer here know if they can get away with that?

--
Help fight spam

Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 05:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yeah, cuz Courts are especially known for being that dumb and putting up with jackassery.
Seriously, you pull that shit, there's going to be arrest warrants out for contempt violations, and that means you're going to at the least, be courting extradition.
Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by Anachragnome · 2009-07-30 05:26 · Score: 3, Funny

IANAL and I know that is a bad idea. (wow. almost spelled that "I ANAL")
There are legal means of addressing the situation, and contempt of court is not one of them.
Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by PopeRatzo · 2009-07-30 05:49 · Score: 1

There are legal means of addressing the situation, and contempt of court is not one of them.
Yes, but they're not nearly as effective as the extra-legal means. The system is designed to create the illusion of recourse for individuals, while protecting the power of corporations.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by spazdor · 2009-07-30 05:49 · Score: 1

I don't have the mod points to 'insightful' you, so instead I'll chime in that I think you have exactly the right response.
Things like country-bans are circumventable by the very nature of what the Internet is. Comply 100% with the court order, while loudly demonstrating its ineffectuality.

--
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by HeronBlademaster · 2009-07-30 05:59 · Score: 1

No, but someone *else* could post those instructions.
Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by corbettw · 2009-07-30 06:25 · Score: 4, Funny

Maybe someone should provide the instructions in a torrent.

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by Jurily · 2009-07-30 06:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

Could someone please explain to me what authority a Dutch court has on a Swedish site?
Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by manwal · 2009-07-30 07:09 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter, it's no longer hosted in Sweden.
Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by marnues · 2009-07-30 08:39 · Score: 1

You confuse design with implementation.
Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 08:43 · Score: 5, Informative

They do not have. But this was a 'kort geding'. It has no equivalent in US law. You could compare it to a preliminary injunction or summary judgement.
BREIN simply states: The rights of the artists we represent are violated (under Dutch copyright law you cannot offer services that allow third parties to infringe upon the copyrights of others), and this happens in the Netherlands, and it happens now and it needs to be stopped quickly because the damages cannot continue.
The TPB could have said, or could have sent someone who would have said: 'BREIN is lying, nothing is offered in the Netherlands' or whatever. Since they failed to show up and didn't send someone to represent them the judge, who does not do a full investigation of the facts, only has the 'evidence' BREIN provides.
From that point of view it is a clear violation of Dutch copyright law, which is happening under Dutch jurisdiction (albeit by Swedish persons) which needs to stop. And, since TPB was not there, they are 'convicted in absentia'. This is a normal course of events.
If you do not show up, the only thing the judge can do is check whether the claims are not blatantly unlawful. And if not, they are almost always awarded. As happened here. Most lawyers could have told them this would happen if they didn't send someone and the judge deemed it probable they did hear they were summoned.
The latter is so you can't run and hide in order to escape conviction.
Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by Jurily · 2009-07-30 09:37 · Score: 4, Funny

(under Dutch copyright law you cannot offer services that allow third parties to infringe upon the copyrights of others)
In my country, it is illegal for me to read your post, therefore you will be sentenced to death shortly.
Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 09:42 · Score: 0

They don't simply.
This trial wasn't really about TPB as a site. BREIN wants a precedent to call from in courts to apply pressure on ISPs.
This sentence isn't relevent in sweden.
To be sued in a country in which you do not live or operate (for instance a site as TPB) have no legal stand in other countries. If I were sueing say... slashdot. I can't sue them in my homecountry as slashdont have no servers here. Therefor if I chose to sue slashdot I would need to sue them in international court. The only chance of being tried in a diffenerent country would be if you have been extridited to that country and the trial will take place after that extridition.
So to summarize :
Question: "Could someone please explain to me what authority a Dutch court has on a Swedish site?"
Answer: Not any authority what so ever.
Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by nstlgc · 2009-07-30 09:45 · Score: 1

The site is hosted in the Netherlands.

--
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 10:09 · Score: 1, Informative

Could someone please explain to me what authority a Dutch court has on a Swedish site?
None, as long as the site isn't hosted on Dutch soil all they could realistically do is force Dutch based ISP's to block access to the site. And we all know how technically feasible that is....
Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 10:58 · Score: 0

Listen and Repeat.
European Union
European Union
European Union
Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? by Dan541 · 2009-07-30 20:33 · Score: 1

Of course you can get away with it so long as you do not violate the court order. If the court forbids you from putting that age up then you cannot, otherwise there's nothing wrong with it.

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"

IPREDator by TheOrangeMan · 2009-07-30 05:17 · Score: 1

And what happens if you're Dutch and use IPREDator to access the Pirate Bay? I doubt they built a "dutch backdoor" into that.

--
My left arm is all scars and I consider that a valid excuse...

Re:IPREDator by Em+Emalb · 2009-07-30 05:22 · Score: 1

I doubt they built a "dutch backdoor" into that.
Of course not. They built a dutch oven into it.
For those that don't know what a dutch oven is, please look it up.

--
Sent from your iPad.

Dutch article on subject by raketman11 · 2009-07-30 05:19 · Score: 1

This has good coverage: http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftweakers.net%2Fnieuws%2F61541%2Frechter-verbiedt-the-pirate-bay-in-nederland-update.html&sl=nl&tl=en&history_state0= (In dutch http://tweakers.net/nieuws/61541/rechter-verbiedt-the-pirate-bay-in-nederland-update.html )

--
trans corpus mortuum

And In Other News by MightyMartian · 2009-07-30 05:26 · Score: 5, Funny

Seattle, WA - The Kingdom of the Netherlands has been ordered to pay Irving Schwartzmizzlegub $50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for causing his pet cockerspanial , Peppy-dee, to die. Judge Thomas Hikemyjacksbitchpeople awarded Schwartzmizzlegub the large sum because, in his own words "These fucking people live by dikes, and I got Herpes in Amsterdam when I was 20."

Schwartzmizzlegub alleged that the osmotic psychowaves emanating from several Dutch cities caused little Peppy-dee to spiral into canine depression, prostitute himself at a nearby 7-11, and ultimately take his own life by leaping into the Slurpee machine.

The large size of the award is assumed to be because the Kingdom of the Netherlands never appeared in court. A representative of the Dutch ambassador tried to explain that countries can't actually move, but the judge rejected that, called the Ambassador's representative "a sub-German freek" and made the award.

Schwartzmizzlegub is planning to use the money to clone Elvis and make him into a sex-slave.

This article is protected by nuclear technology by AP

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:And In Other News by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 05:32 · Score: 0

Posting Anon for Moderation. I had a hard time choosing between funny and insightful. It certainly seems like its not far from reality at this point. Globalization sucks. :(

Easy solution to that ... by MartinSchou · 2009-07-30 05:27 · Score: 3, Funny

Step 1) Make a blanket rule on any IP resolving to a .NL address
Step 2) The rule presents the users with the following message:

Dear user
Thanks to a ruling from a Dutch court, we are required to prevent anyone from the Netherlands not using a proxy to mask their country from using our site.
Kind regards
The Staff

Alright, the last link might be a bit much, but still ...

Unexpected ? by lbalbalba · 2009-07-30 05:33 · Score: 1

Whaddayamean, unexpected ? Wasn't this totally to be expected, as their doing essentially the same stuff as napster et al used to do in the past ? And got sued for ? And lost ?

Re:Unexpected ? by Tridus · 2009-07-30 05:38 · Score: 1

Yeah, it doesn't really seem unexpected. TPB talks big when doing interviews, but they don't do nearly so well in court. I suspect the end is nigh for them, and they know it.

--
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Re:Unexpected ? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 05:55 · Score: 0

Can't you RTFA at least? They didn't even know about the case.

Twitter summons? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 05:38 · Score: 0

The verdict states that the guys behind TPB were summoned through Twitter. Can anyone dig up these tweets? It'd also be interesting to se where they came from...

The Netherlands invaded Sweden? by houghi · 2009-07-30 05:40 · Score: 4, Informative

I would think that is the bigger headline here. Otherwise, how could a Dutch court demand anything from a Swedish company?

Or perhaps they should demand the legal drinking age in the US to be 16.

And the irony is that downloading is legal in the Netherlands, just not uploading.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Re:The Netherlands invaded Sweden? by TheSpoom · 2009-07-30 08:09 · Score: 1

Downloading is legal in a lot of states. Uploading is the action that usually gets one in trouble.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:The Netherlands invaded Sweden? by zsau · 2009-07-30 23:34 · Score: 1

And the irony is that downloading is legal in the Netherlands, just not uploading.
It's almost impossible for a regular user to use the Pirate Bay without uploading something.

--
Look out!

Do not mess with pirates by Important+Remark · 2009-07-30 05:40 · Score: 1

This is what the dutch got from it

Easy by lalena · 2009-07-30 05:42 · Score: 1

The Pirate Bay should block visitors from the Netherlands

Are you from the Netherlands?
No.
Welcome.

Yes, dissolve the EU. by PopeRatzo · 2009-07-30 05:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

I guess there's something to be said for sovereignty. Seems the main effect of the European Union has been to limit individual rights.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by JockTroll · 2009-07-30 06:30 · Score: 2, Informative

What did you expect? The EU is all about economy. It used to be called the European Community, and before that the European ECONOMIC Community. The first thing they set out to do was the common currency. Yes, money. Not a simple, straightforward Constitution reaffirming the inalienable rights of the people and the form and limits of government.
No. Not at all
Money. And trade. The "constitution" they later produced is a horribly bloated piece of shit that enumerates tons of "rights" that are impossible to grant and therefore are pretty much null.
Euro-peons have better get used to this. They are expendable cogs in the EU economic machine, and will be treated as such. Oh, well, they should be used to this. They sucked each and every king's cock for centuries, they'll do it again.

--
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by PopeRatzo · 2009-07-30 06:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

They are expendable cogs in the EU economic machine
It's not just Europe. Here in the US, corporations have somehow managed to convert our Constitution, an Enlightenment-era document about the rights of the individual, into an EULA which basically grants unlimited power to corporations, while enslaving anyone who is not in the top .2% ownership class.
And they managed it while hardly changing a word. Just in the last decade for example, activist judges on our Supreme Court, such as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, have overturned an unprecedented number of laws implemented by Congress and signed by the president, finding in favor of corporate interests and against individual rights at every turn.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by EvilBudMan · 2009-07-30 06:55 · Score: 1

It's like that for the most part in the US too. It goes back to our ape ancestors and how they ran things. Time changes, people don't much. Follow the leader, follow.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 07:28 · Score: 0

No, don't. I like my privacy, without EU rules it would probably be long-gone.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by Bralkein · 2009-07-30 07:53 · Score: 0

Insightful my arse. How did the mods get that out of two sentences? The EU is a flawed institution, but dissolving it would be an extreme and damaging action. Cooperation between European states certainly is a good thing, and it makes sense to have an organisation to govern that. Why not fix what's broken rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Oh, on further examination it turns the parent poster is actually from the US. Which begs the question: what business do they even have calling for the dissolution of the EU? Answer is none.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by TheSpoom · 2009-07-30 08:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

See, here's the main thing I don't like about this (apart from the whole censorship thing, which is obvious).
The Netherlands is asking The Pirate Bay to block its own citizens.
Why doesn't the Netherlands simply block access to The Pirate Bay?
Of course, the answer is simple: to shift the blame away from government.
Too bad most people who go to TPB are smarter than that.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by pnewhook · 2009-07-30 08:24 · Score: 0, Troll

activist judges on our Supreme Court, such as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, have overturned an unprecedented number of laws implemented by Congress and signed by the president
Thats what happens when you put conservatives in positions of power - they use it to push their own beliefs and agenda even if it goes against the will of the majority of the people.

--
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 09:22 · Score: 0

Hmm... let's try to determine the political party associated with the previous poster.
Scalia - Appointed by Ronald Regan (R)
Thomas - Appointed by George Bush (R)
Alito - Appointed by George Bush (part duex) (R)
Roberts - Appointed by George Bush (part duex) (R)
hmm... me thinks I've spotted a Democrat that managed to not do research into how long each have sat on the bench and what their records are. In that case, might I remind my fellow (D) that it doesn't help our cause if there's not evidence to back up claims.
Scalia is a renowned letter of the constitution kind of guy; he hasn't exactly been a friend to a lot of corporations. Roberts and Alito haven't been around long enough to have their reputations to evaluate on as Justices. Thomas usually votes along the lines of what Scalia votes for, him being the second African American on the court and replacing Marshal. These are some pretty lofty and rightly well respected people to have bad things said about them without evidence.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by ReinoutS · 2009-07-30 09:52 · Score: 3, Informative

Totally agree. Furthermore, *thanks* to the EU there is the European Court of Human Rights that one can turn to when all regular courts have failed you. If I recall correctly, Intel even announced recently they would appeal their antitrust fine there. That court has delivered some important verdicts in the past few decades.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by sumdumass · 2009-07-30 10:05 · Score: 1

As the story goes, what you put past my eyes and ears becomes my business.
Seriously, we have just as much right to point and laugh at the clowns over there as they do at us. The EU is a bad deal, it has brought you the Koyoto accords, the wipo WTC and WPPT, it has brought this bullshit ruling up and the loss of sovereignty as it seems. It needs dismantled and restarted from scratch. It's like a rotted tire, you can patch it several times but it's going to eventually fail catastrophically. Replace it before that happens.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by sumdumass · 2009-07-30 10:18 · Score: 1

Yea, conservative that went against the will of the people like Lincoln who ended slavery or Kennedy who did a lot of work on civil rights (who was a conservative even though he ran as a democrat).
You know, the will of the people was to keep slavery around. The will of the people was to keep the tom Crow laws around. The will of the people was to continue doing a lot of things that we find outrageous and extremely distasteful today. The Salem witch trials was because of the will of the people. I don't think you have actually looked at history and paid enough attention to know how dangerous the will of the people is.
And no, this isn't a conservative verses liberal issue. Whoever told you that was blowing smoke up your ass just to fool you into party line voting for their version of an asshat. Do some critical thinking of you own and pay some attention to the actual facts.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by sumdumass · 2009-07-30 10:23 · Score: 1

You smoking something. What laws were overturned unjustly? Where was it decided that the constitution applied but didn't in reality? There are only two ways a law can be overturned. One is if it's in conflict with another law and the intent of either isn't clear, and the other is when it is in conflict with the constitution. SO what was unprecedented about conflicts with the constitution?
And if I was you, I would be more worried about lawmakers not paying attention to the constitution then I would about judges correcting that mistake. There might be things in there that you don't agree with or limits to government powers you dislike, but when you ignore it, you open the doors to ignore what you like about it too. And yes, I will be there pointing and saying I told you so when your freedom of speech or religion is gone or your right to a fair and speedy trial is gone and so on. In fact, I'm laughing already.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by Kjella · 2009-07-30 10:24 · Score: 1

About as much right as we had to complain about Bush I guess, which was quite a lot. I don't think that from the fractured landscape of hostile nation states after the end of WWII to Europe as it is today, that anyone can claim the European Union has been for the worse. But it's also been like the United States on steroids with tons of cultures clashing and the build-up of a top-heavy institution that is increasingly taking more and more control from the nation state and from the directly voted representatives, the European Parliament is no proper substitute. And with constant expansions now heading into the Baltics, Turkey etc. it's a bit like the Roman empire on the march, once they finally stop and build walls it might collapse from the inside out.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by Hurricane78 · 2009-07-30 12:01 · Score: 1

No shit Sherlock? ^^
That was the very point of this "Union" that nobody with half a brain wanted.

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by goarilla · 2009-07-30 19:17 · Score: 1

out of curiousity what was so bad about the kyoto accords (except that it costs us money ) ?
and economicaly the EU is a very good thing
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by Jedi+Alec · 2009-07-30 19:52 · Score: 1

The Netherlands is asking The Pirate Bay to block its own citizens.
Why doesn't the Netherlands simply block access to The Pirate Bay?
Of course, the answer is simple: to shift the blame away from government.
Too bad most people who go to TPB are smarter than that.
Yeah, that must be it...oh wait. We don't have a great wall of china around our borders to filter the web(not that it would be a very great wall, mind you), so how would the government even filter tpb if they were allowed/wanted to? Force every ISP to do so?

--

People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by Niffux · 2009-07-30 21:10 · Score: 1, Informative

That's how they did it in Denmark.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by KozmoStevnNaut · 2009-07-30 23:08 · Score: 1

And we all know how that worked out, don't we? ;-)
The smaller ISPs haven't blocked anything and the bigger ISPs who've been forced to implement the block have only done so by redirecting DNS entries to a "STOP! This page is blocked!" page.
Within 24 hours, anyone who gave a damn about using TPB etc. switched over to using OpenDNS. The blocking is only really intended to prevent the non-technical majority from going to the site, but they probably weren't even using it in the first place anyway.

--
Eat the rich.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by pnewhook · 2009-07-31 01:58 · Score: 1

You know, the will of the people was to keep slavery around. The will of the people was to keep the tom Crow laws around.
Maybe for a few 'deliverance' style inbred white boys south of the mason-dixon, but no, the majority of the people wanted to abolish slavery.

he Salem witch trials was because of the will of the people.

No. The salem witch trials was the will of the few people in the church, and the rest went along because to go against the will of the church meant they would be burned too. Never underestimate the influence of crackpot religions on the uneducated.

And no, this isn't a conservative verses liberal issue.
It becomes one when there is clear conservative bias in the courts forcing their will on the people.

Do some critical thinking of you own and pay some attention to the actual facts.
Do some research of your own. Look at the amount of overturned laws - the vast majority are due to a conservative group in the supreme court.

--
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by Espressor · 2009-07-31 02:15 · Score: 1

Very good point.
And I'll give the example of the McLibel case where the court ruled that the UK libel law breached the European Convention on Human Rights and fined the UK for damages.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by sumdumass · 2009-07-31 03:26 · Score: 1

The entire concept of the Kyoto protocols wasn't that is costs money, it's that it was supposed to redistribute money, wealth, and it was built around a fallacy with an intent to scam in order to do so.
Now before we go any further, whether or not you believe in man made global warming is irrelevant to this point, that was only the death, doom and gloom the kyoto protocol was hiding under to sell it. It never had the ability to stop man made global warming.
Now for some background on it, During the late 1980's there was several groups who were attempting to pressure the wealthy nations to forgive the third world debt that was accumulated from the OPEC oil embargo in which those third world countries borrowed money to explore oil potentials in hopes of getting rich from the US not being sold middle east oil. This movement followed the global warming debate and the Kyoto protocols and pretty much disappeared the year the Kyoto protocols were being created/released. Now originally, the Kyoto protocols were one of those secret treaties where you knew about it but they kept the details secret until a couple years later. It wasn't until the US considered ratification after Bill Clinton signed an intent that the detailed became really apparent.
Now here are the details, they pick 38 of the wealthiest countries, assigned a 1990 goal of Co2 emissions knowing that population growth had already made it impossible to achieve with the technology as young as 8 years later. Then they built in a bypass, you can offshore you carbon production to either another country who has limits or a county without limits or you can keep your production and not count it by simply buying Carbon credits from those countries. Of course out of the 157 or so countries that signed on to it, only 37 or so have limits and if you purchase credits from a limited country, they have to stay under their limits.
Well, this clearly shows where the problems are. Europe imports from China and India tripled in the fist five years after implementation. The only reason some of the countries appear to be hitting their marks is because we are in a world recession and most of the carbon was offset by just moving it to other countries. Because of Kyoto and Europe's, participation, the rate of increase in carbon emissions has not declined, in fact it has increased and it is primarily due to the utilization of third world countries to meet the Kyoto guidelines.
So the fallacy was that it would stop global warming and the reality is that it was just a complex political movement to funnel moneys to third world countries that were indebted to 1st world nations already.
It's one thing to keep your environment clean and having to pay more when it goes to your community. It's entirely another when you have to pay more for a lie and the money goes to foreign nations who are indebted to you because they wanted to take advantage of inflated prices during an oil shortage. Europe as a whole has increased Co2 production since 1998 and they have done so on pace with the US's increases over the same amount of time. If you add the offshoring into the mix, you will clearly see there has been no reduction and in fact an increase in production of carbon emissions. You may not think being lied to and sold a broken bill of goods is a bad thing, but the only so called advantage to what was billed as a world problem is local results that only look good if you ignore the external reality imposed by the treaty on the world. In short, your gains may make you feel good, but you have to ignore every other country in order to make those claims legit and it's a little disingenuous to only consider local advantage to a global problem when the direct result of the rest of the globe can be in part attributed to the smoke and mirrors that Kyoto was designed to put in place.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by sumdumass · 2009-07-31 03:52 · Score: 1

Maybe for a few 'deliverance' style inbred white boys south of the mason-dixon, but no, the majority of the people wanted to abolish slavery.

Lol.. OK, rewrite history to show your point. Lincoln was almost defeated in his election because his opponent said he wanted blacks to be equals with the whites. Lincoln had to go around calling them niggers and stating that he only wanted better treatment for them because they should at least have as good of a life as an oxen.
No, the majority at that time did not want to end slavery, they only wanted to end the harsh treatment of the slaves. If the majority of people wanted to end slavery, congress could have ended it by law and not because of the southern state seceding from the union.

No. The salem witch trials was the will of the few people in the church, and the rest went along because to go against the will of the church meant they would be burned too. Never underestimate the influence of crackpot religions on the uneducated.

It doesn't matter what the root of the situation was, the rest of the people- read majority of them- accepted it and wanted it. The reasons why they accepted it or wanted it is irrelevant. You signified the will of the people, If I claim that aliens are coming and we need to end welfare, divert all of those resources to programs to invent intense energy beam weapons for our defense, and the majority of people agreed or went along with it, it would still be the will of the people no matter how stupid or misconceived it was.
Your not saying that the will of the people is only important when you agree with it are you? The majority of the people thought having witched in their midst was a bad thing and something needed to be done about it during the Salem witch trials.

It becomes one when there is clear conservative bias in the courts forcing their will on the people.

What will? the laws and stuff are made by the people in power and they are limited to the constitution and they were elected. The courts can only act if a law is in conflict with another law or the constitution so what will is being imposed that wasn't already there? You are not one of those living document people who think the constitution needs to change with society despite a mechanism built inside the constitution for changing it as long as the change is constitutional are you? If so then you need to shut the hell up. This is because 1: you most likely have a distorted view of reality and 2: you can't complain about unconstitutional laws or government actions when you won't even follow the letter of it.

Do some research of your own. Look at the amount of overturned laws - the vast majority are due to a conservative group in the supreme court.

Like I said, the laws need to be in conflict with another law or the constitution to be over turned. Show me one that wasn't justified by either and I might believe you. The fact that we have unconstitutional laws should be way more alarming then that we have a court which is actually tackling the problem when it's presented to them. Over turning bad laws is not a problem. IF you can show where there was no basis to over turn these laws then your claim might have some credit. But the courts have to use precedent and the laws and constitution for the basis of their rulings. You have showed nothing other then they were doing their jobs as proof of your conspiracy.
If you seriously think the conservative court is imposing it's will, then why wasn't Bush supported with the indefinite detention of the gitmo detainees? Why did the court rule against him on a number of those issues including military tribunals? I don't believe you have any basis in reality unless you are upset that the judges did not ignore the constitution and laws in order to keep a bad law in place.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-31 05:56 · Score: 0

Of course, the answer is simple: to shift the blame away from government.
If The Netherlands blocked access to The Pirate Bay, then they would be censoring any legal stuff on that website too, so that would be an illegal action. As far as I can see, ordering TPB to block Dutch users from all illegal content is the only thing the Dutch court can legally do.
So no, not to shift the blame away from the government, but to not break the law.
-- Sjoerd Cranen [scranen gmail com]
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by pnewhook · 2009-07-31 06:11 · Score: 1

Lol.. OK, rewrite history to show your point
You must be from the south. Don't you call it 'the war of northern agression'? Talk about rewriting history...

If I claim that aliens are coming and we need to end welfare
WTF??? Your example doesn't make any sense. What do aliens and welfare have to do with one another?

The majority of the people thought having witched in their midst was a bad thing and something needed to be done about it during the Salem witch trials
Because they were brainwashed by the church to believe in witches!!!

Like I said, the laws need to be in conflict with another law or the constitution to be over turned. Show me one that wasn't justified by either and I might believe you.
Ok, Supreme Courtâ(TM)s 2007 âoeLedbetterâ decision.
This ruling tossed out a female tire company managerâ(TM)s complaint that she was paid less than her male counterparts for equal work over roughly two decades. President Barack Obama signed a law overturning the courtâ(TM)s decision shortly after taking office. The courtâ(TM)s ruling in that case âoedefied common senseâ and âoecontradicted decadesâ of precedent.
Also read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/11/opinion/11mon2.html?_r=1&ex=1158206400&en=34af211f058d50a3&ei=5087%0A

If you seriously think the conservative court is imposing it's will, then why wasn't Bush supported with the indefinite detention of the gitmo detainees? Why did the court rule against him on a number of those issues including military tribunals?
Because Bush was clearly acting illegally. There could be no possible legal defense of that position and still be able to sleep at night no matter how much of a fundamentalist crackpot you are.

--
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by TheSpoom · 2009-07-31 06:55 · Score: 1

Yes, force every ISP to do so.
What, you think that attempting to force a foreign company to block your own citizens is any less evil?
It's all sleight of hand. Make it look like TPB is the one doing the blocking, and uninformed users are none-the-wiser.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by sumdumass · 2009-07-31 16:45 · Score: 1

You must be from the south. Don't you call it 'the war of northern agression'? Talk about rewriting history...
You think you know it all but just don't know anything. I'm from the north and I actually studies that period in history. Lincoln only got 40% of the popular vote with an 81% turnout. He won because the rest of the vote against him was split between 3 other guys. That doesn't seem like the will of the people to me, but hey, you can rewrite history in your fantasy land. Just remember, it doesn't work in real life.

WTF??? Your example doesn't make any sense. What do aliens and welfare have to do with one another?
It doesn't matter if it is the will of the people. Right? You said the will of the people is more important, even if you don't agree or understand the reasoning, if the majority support it, then the will of the people is what is important right? Or are there times when it doesn't make sense to do what the people want? I mean you can't have it both ways, because then you aren't making any sense.

Because they were brainwashed by the church to believe in witches!!!
It doesn't matter, at one point in time they were brain washed into believing slavery was ok, black and Indians were less then human with the later needing killed on sight, Homosexuals should be beaten to death and that women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Some of that was acted on and perfectly acceptable because it was the will of the people. Then people in charge started outlawing it, and so on. The popular opinion was that women should not have a say in politics, try reading about the woman's suffrage movement a little. How the people determine their will is not important if their will is. What you are now attempting to say is that the will of the people is only important if you agree with it. That's fine and all, but don't cry when others do the same damn thing.

Ok, Supreme Courtâ(TM)s 2007 âoeLedbetterâ decision.
This ruling tossed out a female tire company managerâ(TM)s complaint that she was paid less than her male counterparts for equal work over roughly two decades. President Barack Obama signed a law overturning the courtâ(TM)s decision shortly after taking office. The courtâ(TM)s ruling in that case âoedefied common senseâ and âoecontradicted decadesâ of precedent.
And you go on to cite an opinion piece as your reference. There is a reason why it is called opinion and not news. It even has opinion written in bold letters at the top of the page.
But lets look at this anyways.
The court held that
A: Ledbetter did not file her grievances within the time period the law allows and she still didn't charge discrimination during the supposed time, she attempted to go back for an appearance of an effect later. (so in essence, she was perfectly fine with her pay until she realized she wasn't getting enough retirement and then alledge discrimination in order to get more but didn't show any) It was Because the later effects of past discrimination do not restart the clock for filing an EEOC charge, Ledbetter's claim is untimely.
B: In a 1986 ruling, it was determined that an em-ployer violates Title VII and triggers a new EEOC charging period whenever the employer issues paychecks using a discriminatory pay structure. It is not, as Ledbetter contends, a "paycheck accrual rule" under which each paycheck, even if not accompanied by discrimina-tory intent, triggers a new EEOC charging period during which the complainant may properly challenge any prior discriminatory con-duct that impacted that paycheck's amount, no matter how long ago the discrimination occurred.
It goes on to say Ledbetter has not adduced evi-dence that Goodyear initially adopted its performance-based pay sys-tem in order to discriminate based on sex or
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by pnewhook · 2009-08-01 00:29 · Score: 1

I'm from the north and I actually studies that period in history.
Sounds like you just read fictional revisionist history pieces since you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

It doesn't matter if it is the will of the people. Right? You said the will of the people is more important, even if you don't agree or understand the reasoning, if the majority support it, then the will of the people is what is important right?
Thats not what I said at all. Leave it to an asshole software guy to take a statement and blow it completely out of proportion. If you can't follow a conversation and just twist what you think you heard into some ridiculous absolute, then I can't explain it to you.

From the looks of your statement, you just copied someone elses crap statement so come up with some real stuff here. It sounds like you are being lied to by the people you think you can believe.

From the ridiculous placing of hyphens it is clear all you did was cut and paste someone elses opinion piece. You did exactly what you are accusing me of.

You just attempted to claim that the supreme court was acting illegal, defying common sense and decades of precedent to throw out a case that was already thrown out before it even got to the supreme court, and now you say they are worried about acting legally and their appearance?
Are you saying that just because they are biased in a few cases that they then must be biased in all cases and cant make any good decisions? These people got to where they are because of good decisions and obvious intelligence, but that does not mean they cannot be biased like I pointed out.
Everything seems it must be black or white in your world - a world of absolutes. You will never be a good software coder until you open your mind and realize there is more out there than your tiny little imaginary world of absolutes.

--
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Re:Yes, dissolve the EU. by sumdumass · 2009-08-01 06:49 · Score: 1

Sounds like you just read fictional revisionist history pieces since you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Umm.. Try a history book, Lincoln only getting 40% of the popular vote is a verifiable fact.

Thats not what I said at all. Leave it to an asshole software guy to take a statement and blow it completely out of proportion. If you can't follow a conversation and just twist what you think you heard into some ridiculous absolute, then I can't explain it to you.

Then what did you fucking say. And remember, just like history, there is a record of it so explain your statement as you intended it to mean and we will see if you just have a problem with your communication skills.

From the ridiculous placing of hyphens it is clear all you did was cut and paste someone elses opinion piece. You did exactly what you are accusing me of.

Actually, no - you can't make that conclusion. The hyphens and commas are common on western keyboards. The irregularities in your cut and past are formatting marks in some mark up languages that seem to want to transfer with a cut and paste. You can't make the same assumption about what I wrote. However, I did cut and past much of the explanation of the decision from the ruling itself because it directly contradicted your position. It's not verbatim but it isn't hidden seeing how I told you I was pointing it out. Now, if you would have cut and pasted from the actual ruling and not some biased third party without ever looking at the ruling yourself, you wouldn't have came to the same conclusions. How do I know that, because you would have had the real information in front of you and not have been a tool for someone elses agenda.

Are you saying that just because they are biased in a few cases that they then must be biased in all cases and cant make any good decisions? These people got to where they are because of good decisions and obvious intelligence, but that does not mean they cannot be biased like I pointed out.

No, I am saying that because they are making good decisions, your entire biased accusation is unfounded bullshit based around your own biases. As I already pointed out, the case you mentioned didn't even rule on the topics to toss the case out, it ruled that a lower court was justified in their ruling and the claims the complaintant files against it were inconsistent and unfounded with the law. That's completely different then being biased. Now, if you still think that was biased, then simply show where it was in the law and where the opinion of the court was in error. IF you can't, then like I said, your claims of being biased is bullshit.

Everything seems it must be black or white in your world - a world of absolutes. You will never be a good software coder until you open your mind and realize there is more out there than your tiny little imaginary world of absolutes.

Things are black and white and absolute. Not all things but there are things that are. So far, you have pointed to a case that was decided in a lower court and uphelp all the way to the supreme court as a point in their being biased but you neglect the facts that a lower court made the ruling, justified the ruling, and did so in a way that was consistent with the law of the land. That is what the supreme court upheld and it took a great deal of effort supporting that opinion with case laws and statutes that are in black and white.
Perhaps you should not worry about how good I am or not and start worry about how grounded your ideals are in reality.

â30 or â30.000? by nickruiz · 2009-07-30 05:50 · Score: 1

In a totally unexpected ruling, a Dutch court has decided that The Pirate Bay should block visitors from the Netherlands within 10 days or face a fine of â30,000 per defendant per day.

FYI, if you write â30,000, you really mean â30, because the EU swaps comma notation with decimal notation. According to the article, the fine is â30.000 per defendant per day, which is a ridiculously high number.

Re:â30 or â30.000? by maxume · 2009-07-30 06:23 · Score: 1

€30,000 is perfectly cromulent in the U.S.
â30.000 doesn't even make sense.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:â30 or â30.000? by nickruiz · 2009-07-30 07:09 · Score: 1

Touche. I tried pasting the character, but it didn't render when I submitted. Fail.
Re:â30 or â30.000? by fridaynightsmoke · 2009-07-30 07:10 · Score: 1

FYI, if you write â30,000, you really mean â30, because the EU swaps comma notation with decimal notation. According to the article, the fine is â30.000 per defendant per day, which is a ridiculously high number.
Caveat: BUT NOT IN THE UK! I've seen posts on here saying that we use the 'european' system of ',' being a decimal point, but we don't and they are very wrong. We use commas and decimal points in exactly the same way as the US.

--
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.

Bloody Dutch ! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 05:50 · Score: 0

Those bastards should be banned - weren't the Dutch the ones that started pirating on other countries ? And now they choose to attack our pirates !

Oops, I'm Dutch.

International Law? by thisnamestoolong · 2009-07-30 05:53 · Score: 1

IANAL -- but this seems pretty insane that a foreign court can demand that you appear and then begin assessing damages against you. Can someone more knowledgeable please clarify, this seems really bizarre and has staggering implications (websites being liable to obey every single local law across the globe).

--
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine

Re:International Law? by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-07-30 06:01 · Score: 1

No of course they can't, for exactly the reason you state.

Fun Facts by Hunter0000 · 2009-07-30 05:53 · Score: 3, Funny

Now I know there is a limit on the fine, but for the sake of ridiculousness...

Population of the Netherlands, 16,500,156
Fine per person per day, US $42,300
GDP of Sweden, US $484,550,000,000

Number of years required for the entire economic output of Sweden to pay back for a week of TPB usage by the entire Netherlands, 10

Where do they come up with these damn numbers?

Re:Fun Facts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 07:51 · Score: 0

It's a new age of armed conflict. Instead of lobbing a nuke at you, we'll just fine you to death.

the other direction by buchner.johannes · 2009-07-30 05:53 · Score: 1

Wouldn't it make more sense that if the Dutch jurisdiction doesn't want the traffic to/from X to tell providers to not allow connections to X rather than to tell X "we don't want your service".

Either way, as mentioned above proxy servers refute the quest. I like the word quest.

--
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.

Re:the other direction by tobiah · 2009-07-30 06:48 · Score: 1

Totally. The Dutch need their own green dam. Can't believe that didn't occur to them.

--
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
Re:the other direction by ImNotAtWork · 2009-07-30 07:41 · Score: 1

Or maybe it did occur to them. It may be illegal for them to stop their constituents from going to a website but not illegal for them to tell a website not to serve their constituents.

--
open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/

Unable to go != unwilling to go by QX-Mat · 2009-07-30 06:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

I read the rough translation over at http://drop.io/breinpaidforthis_english

The only bit interesting was:

1.3 Since they summoned did not show up at the summoning they can now not fall back on the letter they have sent from 27th of juli 2009. Since they have said they were not going to be in court at the date appointed they can not fall back on not knowing about the summoning (article 142, lawbook of the netherlands Civil rights)

In most jurisdictions, if hold yourself out as intentionally disobeying an order of the court, they can throw the book at you in your absense. It all hinges on how the judge decides to interpret your letter of intent - they can be strict and litteral, or understanding and wide. Saying you will not be attending is very different to being unable to attend, regardless of whatever else said. Consider, "I am unable to attend the meeting because a family member has died and I am at the funeral at that time. I will not come." and "[at that time]. Please rearrange meeting". The latter indicates intent to come, whereas the former does not.

I find it hard to believe that they don't have prescribed methods of good notice - ie: in the UK good notice can be at their abode, registered address, or place of work. Only when you have "good notice" can you reply on preceedures in absense.

Matt

Re:Unable to go != unwilling to go by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 08:30 · Score: 0

In most jurisdictions, if hold yourself out as intentionally disobeying an order of the court, they can throw the book at you in your absense. It all hinges on how the judge decides to interpret your letter of intent - they can be strict and litteral, or understanding and wide. Saying you will not be attending is very different to being unable to attend, regardless of whatever else said. Consider, "I am unable to attend the meeting because a family member has died and I am at the funeral at that time. I will not come." and "[at that time]. Please rearrange meeting". The latter indicates intent to come, whereas the former does not.
I find it hard to believe that they don't have prescribed methods of good notice - ie: in the UK good notice can be at their abode, registered address, or place of work. Only when you have "good notice" can you reply on preceedures in absense.
Problem is that before you even get that far there is this international process known as extradition. Were the defendants in this case extradited to the Netherlands? I suspect not.
Perhaps the dutch court involved has forgotten or didn't get their own memo: Overleveringswet.
Re:Unable to go != unwilling to go by lacoronus · 2009-07-30 12:31 · Score: 1

Problem is that before you even get that far there is this international process known as extradition.
This is not done in civil cases, only criminal.

Why didn't China think of this? by Talla · 2009-07-30 06:12 · Score: 1

Just fine everybody who gives any Chinese citizen information the Chinese government don't want them to have.

No dutch folks by Quiet_Desperation · 2009-07-30 06:18 · Score: 1

How about couples who are actually dating?

Is the judge Nigel Powers? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 06:20 · Score: 0

Incidentally, the court also hates people who are intolerant of other people's cultures.

www.anti-piracy.nl by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 06:22 · Score: 0

Here in the Netherlands, I've tried several times to reach the website of BREIN which claims to be an authority on these matters, to learn more about this issue. I've been trying for weeks actually, but every single time I click on anti-piracy.nl the server fails to acknowledge my request.

FWIW, I'd really like to be a customer of Netflix, Hulu, and/or Pandora, but those sites are also blocked for me here in the Netherlands, and to-date I've seen nothing offered in comparison to purchase or support via advertising.

How about people from Belgium? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 06:28 · Score: 0

I'm from Belgium, however my ISP in in Holland, will they be kind enough to unblock my ip? since I'm not really living in Holland / visiting from Holland.

The legal term in Dutch is by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 06:38 · Score: 0

pullen outen den arsen.

Re:The legal term in Dutch is by jonaskoelker · 2009-07-30 07:44 · Score: 1

I always thought it was called "pullout van de ars"

Distributed BoingBoing Clone? by gilgongo · 2009-07-30 06:42 · Score: 1

I know there are lots of ways for the Dutch to circumvent this (if it actually happens), but does anyone here remember Distributed BoingBoing? Seemed to me to be a really rather cool way of doing this kind of thing. Of course, it would need to be modified to handle connections to the tracker, so maybe it wouldn't be so easy compared to a straight http site.

--
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"

Ob. Austin Powers by DarthVain · 2009-07-30 06:56 · Score: 0, Redundant

"There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch."

TPB's blog on the matter by Co0Ps · 2009-07-30 06:57 · Score: 1

The press representative of The Pirate Bay, Peter Sunde, announces that he is filing criminal charges and lodging a lawsuit for defamation in Swedish court against Mr. Tim Kuik of Stichting BREIN in the Netherlands. This is a response to the blatant and outrageous claims publically made by Mr. Tim Kuik. Recently, he has claimed in international press that The Pirate Bay operators and Peter Sunde are engaging in criminal so-called DDoS attacks against the web site of Stichting BREIN.

...

- "Today we got information about the hearing after a journalist contacted us. We have sent an angry letter to the district court of Amsterdam about this and we're very certain the court will have to throw the case out the window", says Gottfrid Svartholm. "None of us live in The Netherlands, operate from there or do even own the site they are suing over. There are so many errors in this lawsuit that it's almost a crime to spend the courts time this way!", says Fredrik Neij.

The Source...

Whoa! Holy discrimination Batman! by amoeba1911 · 2009-07-30 07:11 · Score: 1

and tomorrow we'll be blocking Blacks and Jews! I don't like where this is going at all, discrimination is alive and well.

Looking for Iranians by CAPSLOCK2000 · 2009-07-30 07:27 · Score: 1

Perhaps we can start trading proxies with Iranians.

TPB should take a cue from goatse.cx by Ant+P. · 2009-07-30 07:28 · Score: 1

<h1>The TPB lawyers have informed us that we need a warning! So, if you are from the Netherlands or think you might be Dutch, please do not look at this site! Thank you!</h1> 

How about mininova? by Beerdood · 2009-07-30 07:34 · Score: 1

They're dutch based, and one of the top ranked torrent sites as well. How did TPB (based in another country) get a fine imposed on them before mininova? Shouldn't the dutch anti-pirate agencies look in their own back yard first?

--
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM

Re:How about mininova? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 09:06 · Score: 0

Brein is already going after Mininova. The verdict is postponed from July 15 to August 26 though - source (Dutch, sorry)

Re:Fun (&inaccurate) Facts by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 07:39 · Score: 1, Informative

Now I know there is a limit on the fine, but for the sake of ridiculousness...

Population of the Netherlands, 16,500,156
Fine per person per day, US $42,300
GDP of Sweden, US $484,550,000,000

Number of years required for the entire economic output of Sweden to pay back for a week of TPB usage by the entire Netherlands, 10

Where do they come up with these damn numbers?

Uh, while the number is certainly funny, the original article states:

"The Pirate Bay has to stop all of their activities in The Netherlands within ten days. If they donâ(TM)t comply all defendants will be ordered to pay 30,000 euros ($42,300) per day in penalties up to a maximum of 3 million euros ($4,231,000) total.

The court argued that BREIN had done enough to inform the three defendants about the court case, although they were never officially summoned."

So the three defendants of the trial, the TPB people will have to pay $42,300 a day until they comply with the law or reach the fine limit.

Correct by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 08:04 · Score: 1, Interesting

If you're served with court papers from your own country summoning you to the court, always go and make sure you're on time. However, when you get them from a foreign country, think twice about it and then don't go. The chances that you don't get a fair trial are too big even under normal circumstances (just the standard situation where you probably don't know what the legal landscape is like abroad, or didn't when you did or where perceived to have done whatever it is that you're summoned for) and in any case the summons may just be a trap to arrest you and lock you up. And considering that the general air over here is that Brein has bought the courts and politicians I don't think the Pirates' chances were that high even if they had shown up.

They should have come. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 08:14 · Score: 1, Informative

This was not a full court case. It was more like a Prelimanary injunction or a Summary judgment in US law (it has no precise counterpart though).

BREIN contests that the artist sthey represent are suffering a lot of damage and that this needs to be stopped as soon as possible. Therefore, they apply for a 'Kort geding' (short case).

BREIN said that TPB infringed upon Dutch copyright law which states that it is not allowed to provide means or services to third parties that (primarily) facilitate copyright infringement (Article 26d). As the Pirate Bay did not show up, they could not provide counterevidence that this infringement was not substantial enough (that is a lot of traffic would be legal), or would harm them unreasonably.

Failure to show up, and thus to provide counterevidence /can only harm you/ in such a case. It's not a full trial, remember. So the judge cannot do anything but accept the facts BREIN provides (they could refuse to hear them, but since BREIN contests the facts are committed in the Netherlands, they probably could not). This is a called a 'veroordeling bij verstek' (conviction in absentia).

Of course, it will be hard to execute the judgement. What if they do not honour this judgement? BREIN will probably have to take this up in Sweden. Or fight Dutch ISP's. However, TPB would have done well to have sent someone, at least.

It might appear strange the judge can decide this, but this is deliberate, so people cannot move away and hide in order to escape conviction. An appeal will contain a full investigation.

Examples? by DesScorp · 2009-07-30 08:18 · Score: 1

"Just in the last decade for example, activist judges on our Supreme Court, such as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, have overturned an unprecedented number of laws implemented by Congress and signed by the president, finding in favor of corporate interests and against individual rights at every turn."

OK, defend "unprecedented". How many has SCOTUS overturned in comparison to past courts? Which specific individual rights have been thrown away to enrich the evil corporate overlords?

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel

Re:Examples? by hairyfeet · 2009-07-30 09:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, I don't know which ones he is talking about but i would call taking away the right to own property a pretty big one. Think they didn't take it away? Before they could only pull eminent domain if it was in the interest of the entire community, like running an electric grid to power an entire community. Now SCOTUS has ruled they can take your land away to give it to Walmart for a new supercenter. I'd say that was a pretty big change.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Examples? by sumdumass · 2009-07-30 10:12 · Score: 1

Actually, the arguments on the city side said the benefit was the entire community because of the shift in the tax base and employment opportunities.
It's not different of an argument as you already state was acceptable. The only difference is that you seem to think it only applies to public works but the Electrical grid was originally put up by private companies and wasn't a public entity until recently when the communications deregulation act made it so. Other examples of this happening in the past were private roads that had tolls places in them, built and operated by private corporations. Railroads is another exercise of eminent domain that has historically been used for private enterprise.
The US supreme court ruled in no different way then before, the arguments and details were just outrageous and evoked a sense of compassion when examined this time.
Re:Examples? by hairyfeet · 2009-07-31 00:10 · Score: 1

The MAJOR difference in this case was as follows: Unlike with electric or water, where you are talking about stranding a good chunk of folks without basic utilities, here we are talking about a huge multinational corporation who was basically trying to lowball everyone and give them a pittance for their land, and when they refused they simply stole the land at the end of a gun named government.
I'd say that was a pretty big difference, and I'm seeing this ruling being used in my own state (AR) as an excuse for natural gas wildcatters to steal the mineral rights from folks. They say "take what pittance we offer or we'll just get the state to take it from you". This ruling means your right to own property ends when any corporation decides they like your land PERIOD. You no longer have any choice whether you sell or not, or even the power to negotiate, because they will simply stick a gun in your face called "eminent domain" and take it from you.
You know, for years everyone made fun of the survival nuts, buying up enough weapons to fight WW3 and their "crazy talk" of "the government will take your lands, your rights, and eventually your freedom". Well they don't really sound so crazy anymore, do they? Since 9/11 we have seen more and more of our liberties taken away, and treasonous bribery become simply a way of life. Who would have ever thought that we would win the cold war only to become the Soviets?

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Examples? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-31 04:00 · Score: 0

Who would have ever thought that we would win the cold war only to become the Soviets?
At least the Soviets had the ideological "Everything belongs to the people" thing going for them, even when it meant no individual rights. You don't even get that, you just have everything belonging to the corporations and dwindling individual rights.
Re:Examples? by sumdumass · 2009-07-31 04:02 · Score: 1

Lol.. Life wasn't the way it is today, always.

The MAJOR difference in this case was as follows: Unlike with electric or water, where you are talking about stranding a good chunk of folks without basic utilities, here we are talking about a huge multinational corporation who was basically trying to lowball everyone and give them a pittance for their land, and when they refused they simply stole the land at the end of a gun named government.

And at the time when the electric grid was being built by eminent domain and private companies, it wasn't a basic utility. In fact, only a handful of rich people had access to it. Same thing with the original telephones and indoor plumbing. Of course the plumbing also carried a health and sanitation factor and was sometimes controlled by the cities.
There is no technical difference between then and now except the side details. Those are irrelevant.

I'd say that was a pretty big difference, and I'm seeing this ruling being used in my own state (AR) as an excuse for natural gas wildcatters to steal the mineral rights from folks. They say "take what pittance we offer or we'll just get the state to take it from you". This ruling means your right to own property ends when any corporation decides they like your land PERIOD. You no longer have any choice whether you sell or not, or even the power to negotiate, because they will simply stick a gun in your face called "eminent domain" and take it from you.

First, it's not a big difference. Second, you state has some fucked up laws. In almost every other state, and according to federal law, they pay you a percentage of the going rate for the amount under your land. They have no claim to disturb your land unless they can get a right of way which had been around in the same capacity since the beginning of civilizations.
Now, if you paid attention to the supreme court ruling, you would know that they said unless the state has a law forbidding it. So if you are seeing a problem, it can be changed by a change in your state law. IF you don't understand that, then you are not understanding what the ruling said.

You know, for years everyone made fun of the survival nuts, buying up enough weapons to fight WW3 and their "crazy talk" of "the government will take your lands, your rights, and eventually your freedom". Well they don't really sound so crazy anymore, do they? Since 9/11 we have seen more and more of our liberties taken away, and treasonous bribery become simply a way of life. Who would have ever thought that we would win the cold war only to become the Soviets?

OK, now I know you are crazy.. What rights did you have before 9/11 that you do not have now?
Re:Examples? by PopeRatzo · 2009-08-02 08:26 · Score: 1

Well they don't really sound so crazy anymore, do they?
Yeah, they kinda do, especially since those same people are now claiming that the President isn't really an American citizen.
If you really believe that even the shredding of the Constitution by the previous president means that the US has now "become the Soviets", I think that includes you in the group that "sounds so crazy".

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Examples? by PopeRatzo · 2009-08-02 08:29 · Score: 1

So if you are seeing a problem, it can be changed by a change in your state law
That's dumb because it's often the state that's claiming the eminent domain. So basically, the Supreme Court said that the right to keep the property you own is no longer guaranteed under our US Constitution.
States' Rights is basically a doctrine for allowing local governments to do really bad things.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Examples? by sumdumass · 2009-08-02 08:58 · Score: 1

Wow. Just Wow.
Are you really that inept? The court ruling said that nothing prevented the eminent domain seizures when they were in the public interest outside of written law as long as the constitutionally required compensation is met. This is not carte blanche for the states, they are still bound by their own laws and would have to follow them. In fact, since the ruling on eminent domain, 28 of the states had passed either laws or state constitutional amendments limiting their abilities for eminent domain actions. The laws and amendments are binding on the states and political subdivisions within the states and are completely consistent with the Supreme Court ruling over the matter.
And you should also note that several inferior courts came to the same conclusions which is why it was appealed to the supreme court. When ever you claim the Supreme Court has done something, you need to understand that it is verry rare for them to be the first people ruling on the cases or the first to rule differently. They generally either affirm or deny lower court rulings and in some cases, settle a point in contention with law and the constitution. In order for them to be activist, they would have to be chiming in one cases already settled or something.
If the law doesn't exist, then you can lobby you state legislation to make one exist. When this happens, the political subdivisions will be subject to the terms of the law. That is what the court specifically said in their opinion. If you think it is dumb for the state to make laws and be subjected to follow them, then you should just pack up and move because that is the way it works around here.
As for the state's rights, you really need to look at the history of the United States and all. You seriously have no clue about it, the intent of the founders, the structure of the US government or the limited powers, or the concept behind the 10th amendment which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
I'm not sure what is so damn complicated by that but if you need me to explain the simple language that almost anyone else can understand, I will be happy to. State's rights is a doctrine limiting the power of the federal government to a constitutional rule. This country is a collection of 13 original countries which is why every else in the world, the word state is synonymous for country and it is the basis of the name of our country "The United States of America".
Also, show me where in the constitution, it says that you have a right to keep or own property? It doesn't, it just says that if your property is taken for public use, you need to be justly compensated. If there was somethign actually there, I would probably side with you but as it stands, you seem to be completely confused over the constitution, completely confused over the 10th amendment, completely confused over the history of this country and the system the founders set up, and seriously confused over a ruling made by the supreme court that you appear to have never - ever- fucking read by feel confident in completely misquoting it.

Fight club moment by agentc0re · 2009-07-30 08:24 · Score: 1

Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We install your Internet, we administer your email, we support your pc, we build your networks. We WATCH your packets while you sleep. Do not... fsck with us!

--
Sometimes, the answer is to just destroy it all.

And.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-30 08:57 · Score: 0

Seriously....you can't order people to control who access what the publish! This is just idiotic...wait, isn't this what islamic extremists wanted to do with those cartoons? What's the difference? Really, don't people see how dangerous this is. Cant COURTS see how dangerous this is. It's not about copyright violations, it's about principles about freedom of speech!

Fuck Forbes. by WML+MUNSON · 2009-07-30 08:59 · Score: 1

From the Forbes article:

The Pirate Bay provides an index to BitTorrent files, which can be used for trading media such as movies, music and computer games. The site has more than 20 million users globally.

Oh is that all BitTorrent is good for? In that case, I'm with the Judge.

Isn't downloading legal in NL by onceuponatime · 2009-07-30 09:12 · Score: 1

I was under the impressioni that downloading music was perfectly legal in the Netherlands because all the people who buy cdroms have a portion of it taxed and given to the music industry thieves by the politician thieves.

Re:Isn't downloading legal in NL by koreaman · 2009-07-30 11:47 · Score: 1

People upload via TPB; they don't only download. This is how torrents work.

--
Le français vous intéresse?
Re:Isn't downloading legal in NL by kwikrick · 2009-07-30 18:36 · Score: 1

more importantly, it IS illegal to distribute copyrighted works in the Netherlands without permission from the copyright holder, AND to solicit such offerings.
Until now, this law has not been applied to international internet web sites. But now, with this new ruling, BREIN (the Dutch RIAA) can go ahaed and sue all ISP that allow you to connect to TPB.
Bad stuff.
On the good side, there is no way that TPB can accurately determine whether a user is in the Netherlands, so this ruling can be easily overthrown. Rulings like this, from a shortened procedure, a so called 'kort geding', can be very quickly reversed simply by letting the court know that you are opposing the judgement and setting a date for retrial. Lets hope TPB will do so quickly and show up this time.
I think that TPB website will be available for a while yet. But I for one am going to help anyone circumvent any IP blocks.

--
assignment != equality != identity
Re:Isn't downloading legal in NL by onceuponatime · 2009-07-30 19:42 · Score: 1

Thanks for the explanation. If Brein succeed, then the government really needs to be pressured to cut the tax on cd media. Personally, I never download music, but I do buy cds for video and photographic storage and take objection to my money being fed to thieves. Christ, as a software developer, why is the government not taking part of that money and feeding it back to programmers.

No Nigel Powers yet? by sconeu · 2009-07-30 09:17 · Score: 3, Funny

There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.

Its the United Nations of Europe by Snaller · 2009-07-30 09:55 · Score: 0, Offtopic

And big money is going to kick your butt all over

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating

Uum, how exactly... by Hurricane78 · 2009-07-30 11:54 · Score: 1

...can a Dutch court rule something for a Swedish site??

(No, the EU is NOT a country, and never will be!)

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.

Re:Uum, how exactly... by lordholm · 2009-07-30 18:21 · Score: 1

"the EU is NOT a country, and never will be"
Well, define country... some define England, Wales and Scotland as separate countries, but some call the GB or the UK a country. The Union is moving closer, and might very much one day be considered a country, whether you like it or not is irrelevant. Further, an ever closing Union is a must, in the current world where large groups of people exist as countries (US, China and India), without building up a common Union (a Federation since anything else would be undemocratic if you think of it), we Europeans will be completely screwed (so far we have been OK since China and India are still developing countries); in the end it all falls down to pragmatism, do you want Europe in total to be fucked up by the rest of the planet in the future or do you want to help with building up something common so that we have a chance to defend our values and future.
On the other hand, in order to go back to the topic, from my impression, TBP for some time (after they got busted by the police in Sweden) moved their servers to mirrors in the Netherlands, my further impressions are that they have been moved again.
So, in this case the jurisdiction is very much uncertain. In general, my feel is that the jurisdiction should be the site where the main operators are. For example, if I use Google Sites (me being located in the NL), then Dutch law should apply, not Californian (where the site host comes from in that case). But that is of course what makes sense in general, not necessarily how it would work.
I believe that they are setting a very frightening precedent with this. If I launch a site, I suddenly have to consider the entire planets laws before opening the site, this is counter to the very spirit of the EU. And no, a Dutch court should not be qualified to rule for a Swedish site, even if the EU was a completely integrated federation (i.e. the applicable laws in that case would be Swedish and European, but not the Dutch laws), anything else would be a legal quagmire that certainly would make me think twice before starting any sort of business in the EU.

--
"Civis Europaeus sum!"

Sue, counter-sue! by Leon+da+Costa · 2009-07-30 18:57 · Score: 1

It's kind of difficult for TPB to claim that they were not aware of the lawsuit if they already started to counter-sue a week ago.

Read about it here

Nope by Otis_INF · 2009-07-30 19:00 · Score: 3, Informative

- if they appear in The Netherlands, they can be arrested.

No that's not true, it's not a criminal charge, it was in civil court. You can only be arrested if you have committed a crime. If they're not paying, according to the court, and they appear in the netherlands, the court could order to confiscate their belongings till the sum they have to pay is fulfilled, but that's about it. So i.o.w.: it's likely they just don't give a toss about this ruling.

if they continue to not block the Dutch, then BREIN may have a case for Dutch -ISPs- to block TPB as alternative means of getting TPB blocked.

No, as BREIN isn't associated with the public ministry (Openbaar Ministery) which is the authority which sues people/legal identities in criminal court. BREIN is a civil organisation like any other company or foundation, and therefore has no authority to order anything from anyone. An ISP isn't involved in this (otherwise phone companies should also be held liable when a criminal tells a mate to commit a crime) and therefore can't be ordered to do anything.

The judge is clearly not aware of what internet is. This is common among judges btw. I also find it weird that a civil organisation can censor the internet (through civil court) for people who aren't involved in the lawsuite.

--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.

Re:Nope by Hognoxious · 2009-07-30 23:46 · Score: 1

No that's not true, it's not a criminal charge, it was in civil court.

Contempt of court is a separate offence, the nature of the original case is irrelevant.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Mod parent up by Otis_INF · 2009-07-30 19:08 · Score: 1

I would have upmodded you but I already replied elsewhere. I didn't know it was a kort geding, as indeed there it's very important to show up. TPB should really get a better lawyer. OTOH, they might get sued in a lot of countries, so it's for them undoable to visit each and every one of them to go to a court hearing, I think.

I don't believe Brein has a good case against ISPs as they're not involved in the lawsuit: if Brein orders them to block a certain site, they can simply say they (ISPs) aren't ordered to do so because the site has to block the NL visitors, not an ISP, it would otherwise come down to censorship for the entire population ordered by civil court, which can never happen, as Brein is a civil organisation.

But with dutch judges, one never knows...

--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.

its getting better by the day by shnull · 2009-07-31 00:00 · Score: 1

being from Belgium i have to say that dutch people are supposed to be the progressive ones ... go figure (should we just waste that entire generation right now and get on with the world ?) Furthermore ... what fucking jurisdiction does a dutch judge have in sweden ? NONE, that's right , NONE

--
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)

TPB was out of line... by hesaigo999ca · 2009-07-31 00:52 · Score: 1

You know, considering what people are going through to stay loyal to their favorite torrent site, it seems the least they could have done is send an attorney on their behalf to at least present their side of the story as well as any spoken of documents within this story, no?

Losing because you just didn't show up sucks

Slashdot Mirror

The Pirate Bay Ordered To Block Dutch Users

255 comments