Slashdot Mirror
The Pirate Bay Ordered To Block Dutch Users
secmartin writes "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 €30,000 per defendant per day. Peter Sunde has already announced that he will appeal the ruling. Even though the defendants sent a letter explaining that they were unable to come to the hearing and provided arguments in their favor, these were ignored by the judge because they failed to appear in his court. The full text of the ruling was just published (in Dutch, PDF) by Peter Sunde, and further coverage is available at Forbes."
Remcokatz on twitter was nice enough to translate the verdict into english and put the result on.
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.
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.
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.
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.