Slashdot Mirror


Court Orders the Pirate Bay To Delete Torrents

lbalbalba writes "A Dutch court ruled today that The Pirate Bay has to remove a list of torrents linking to copyrighted works. The list is to be provided by BREIN (similair to the RIAA, in Holland), and is similar to the earlier ruling against Mininova. The defendants are given three months to comply, if not, they will face penalties of 5,000 euros ($7,500) per person, per day."

36 of 455 comments (clear)

  1. Hurrr by Shikaku · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Delete them and let the users make new ones with the same content.

    1. Re:Hurrr by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From: http://thepiratebay.org/legal

      Nice graphs for the law firms who don't get the hint above:

      (we used to have a nice graph here, but it's simpler to just say: 0 torrents has been removed, and 0 torrents will ever be removed.)

      I wonder if that still applies these days.

    2. Re:Hurrr by shentino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It could quite reasonably be argued that the torrent is a derived work.

    3. Re:Hurrr by broken_chaos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really? A set of hashes (the only actual data derived from the original work, as opposed to just metadata about the file) is a derivative work? That sets a terrible precedent...

    4. Re:Hurrr by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, not a derivative work, but a completely different work altogether. A torrent file is a file that points to where you can download another file. If BREIN doesn't own the file, how can they demand it be removed? NO part of the file actually contains ANYTHING they own.

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    5. Re:Hurrr by spydabyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, because proving a court's rulings inconsistent is the best way to win in the real world. See here for another example.

    6. Re:Hurrr by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I stand on a street corner downtown handing out maps of where to buy drugs, can I be arrested even if I have no connection to the people actually selling drugs?

      Yes.

      In the real world, of course, you would be dead before morning if you tried anything of this sort on your own.

    7. Re:Hurrr by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nonsense. By your logic, Colt, and Smith & Wesson is responsible for millions of robberies. Every gun store in the world is also guilty.

      Not nonsense. Earlier this decade, major US cities were prosecuting gun manufacturers for knowingly selling guns to criminal organizations.

      So where are major metropolitan police forces supposed to get their guns from?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    8. Re:Hurrr by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Reasonably"? I don't think so. I'm fairly sure that something can't be a derived work if it wouldn't qualify for copyright on its own. For example, if I say "The length of your comment is 71 characters", that sentence is derived from your (copyrighted) comment, but it's just a fact and thus not a derived work. Similarly, a torrent file may contain information (hashes & lengths) derived from a copyrighted work, but that information would not qualify for copyright on its own merits—being nothing more than abstract facts about the referenced data—and thus should not be considered a derived work.

      Claiming that torrent files are derived works is analogous to claiming that bibliography entries are derived works; both are purely a set of facts which exist only for identification purposes.

      (Notice that there's an odd form of double-think involved in allowing copyright for digital works and not facts when anything in digital form is ultimately nothing more than a collection of facts. Of course, allowing copyright over pure facts would be ridiculous, so the only way to resolve the issue is to recognize that it is inconsistent to allow copyright over anything—not that I expect the pro-copyright group to give up over a little matter like their position being inherently self-contradictory.)

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    9. Re:Hurrr by cheftw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You wrote "shit eating" when you should have written "shit-eating".

      IMPOSTER! A real grammar nazi would know that the period goes BEFORE the quotation mark.

      I'll bite; that applies only to quoted sentences.

      (Grammar Troll'd)

      --
      Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
  2. So... the dutch? by epiphani · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just out of curiosity, what jurisdiction do the dutch have?

    I'm pretty sure if someone in France decided to order me to delete something, I'd tell them to get stuffed.

    --
    .
    1. Re:So... the dutch? by Golddess · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As long as you never plan to travel to France, that would certainly be a viable option.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    2. Re:So... the dutch? by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just out of curiosity why are so many slashdotters pro Pirate Bay. Even if they may not breaking the letter of the law they are going against the intent of the law. It is just an attempt at moral justification so you can sleep at night for downloading that copy of Photoshop? If you want people to respect the GNU policy you really should respect other policies.

      Do you see they hypocrisy in the situation. When FSF sues a company for GNU violations then saying how horrible that pirate bay isn't allowed to ignore the licenses and copyright of other peoples code.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:So... the dutch? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Until we see copyright laws that protect the creative people, the innovators, rather than huge corporations
      > that stockpile IP and blackmail the world, open violation of these absurd copyright laws will continue
      > by a large portion of the otherwise law-abiding population.

      I hate to say it, but I think you're dreaming. In such a world, I think the torrents would still exist. Only if the costs of acquiring it otherwise is vastly reduced would P2P start drying up. Whether your $20 for a CD goes $18 to the artist, or $0.10 to the artist, won't affect P2P changes much, I submit.

      And that's for music. For huge, blockbuster movies and TV shows, well, you simply don't get most of them without big corporations backing their production to begin with. Fine if you wanna argue they're worthless as art, or some other snooty thing, but that people love to torrent them can't be denied.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:So... the dutch? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just out of curiosity why are so many slashdotters pro Pirate Bay. Even if they may not breaking the letter of the law they are going against the intent of the law.

      Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution
      To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to
      Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

      1790: the first copyright law was 14 years + a 14 year extension if the author was alive.
      1909: the copyright term was doubled to 28 years + 28 year extension
      1976: 75 years or life + 50 --- what the fuck!
      1998: 95/120 years or life + 70 --- what the fuck + 20 years!
      2019: We'll see

      In my humble opinion, the intent of current US copyright law no longer follows the intent of the Constitution or original US copyright law.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:So... the dutch? by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Production is a service. Charge people for the service, not for a good with zero marginal cost of production. Ever read the basic economic theory for price? Price = marginal cost. The price of something that's free to produce is free.

      Paying someone for the service is fine, charging for some intangible, infinite pseudo-good is another.

      P.S. - What astro-turfing firm do you work for?

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    6. Re:So... the dutch? by noidentity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have little opinion on TPB (never even used BitTorrent), but I don't think your claim of hypocrisy is valid. Those who are for TPB and for the GPL probably believe that imaginary property shouldn't have any legal protection. The GPL is seen as a way to ensure free access to software, and TPB the same.

  3. What law? by Smegly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What law do they have that says you can't _link_ to copyright material? The *IAA's are celebrating their victories lately... EU Amendment 138 : Killed. Pirate Bay: Offline. Three strikes Laws: Here we come EU, AU, .... Spokesperson for *IAA's overheard saying: "Try route around that damage, Ha!"

  4. Yep, this is going to do nothing. by LitelySalted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only way to control this is by requiring users to have login names and controlling who can post what (perhaps instituting a probationary period of say 3-7 days so that they don't get spammed with new users).

    Otherwise, this is just going to be a repeat of YouTube and other file sharing networks, copyright material still gets uploaded, even if it eventually gets deleted.

    This is exactly why the Pirate Bay claims not to have any responsibility for the content on the site - they do not micromanage any of the who or what, they simply provide the service of hosting.

  5. EU law by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The EU is more then just the economic union it was meant to be. It is being used a tool to make the most extreme rules of one nation affect everyone else, the content mafia happily exploits this by trying in all different countries at once, seeing what gets through and so affect the whole EU at once.

    The EU powers happily cooperate, EU law should rule all citizens except those in power as was made clear today when Berlesconi was not chastised for his many crimes.

    Seems hosting a torrent in another country is bad. Controlling all media in another country, that is that others country business.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  6. Re:Other inconsistencies by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I better buy my ~10 Piratebay t-shirts before they disappear forever. They will be collectors items.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  7. I guess... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess they'll be ordering Google to stop allowing searches next, followed by Yahoo, followed by...followed by. When will these idiots ever discover a clue?

  8. As I've said before. by neo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not property and you, sir, are not an intellectual.

    The very idea that something infinitely reproducible could be considered to have value is preposterous and flies in the face of call macro economic theory. Infinite supply results in infinitesimal value.

    Eventually people will realize that what is being called intellectual property is actually the result of a service, then we will all be happier.

    I want to pay the person who provided the service, but pretending that something ethereal is property is not the way to do it.

    It is simple to create copies, people will continue to do it and the companies who fight it will lose potential customers.

    Wake up.

    We are willing to pay for the services rendered, but your prices are ridiculous.

    1. Re:As I've said before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sigh. I doubt you've ever taken an economics course. Infinite supply has no value? Have you ever heard of consumer surplus? Perhaps you are thinking of zero marginal cost... But firms must price above their *average* cost or they lose money. The common term for this is "return on investment." Without it, people don't *make* investments.

      Calling it "property" doesn't mean people think it's a tangible thing; instead, it gives you a set of legal rights including the right to exclude others. We could get rid of that right with tangible things too, like real estate. We (humans) have tried getting rid of those rights WRT tangible property. It didn't go so well. See also: communism. That doesn't mean information isn't different; it's a non-rivalrous good. But they're similar in the sense that *creation* is rivalrous (read: not free).

      I agree they'll probably never stop it. I'd also agree that there are *some* benefits; with zero marginal cost, someone who gets X without paying receives a benefit. If everyone did this, the producer would receive zero revenue, eventually figure this out, and stop producing. What would you have them set the price at? A fair rate of return? Well them how do you account for the risk that some investments will have negative returns? Perhaps they could charge everyone exactly what it's worth to them, so that you can have X for a lower price. Then everyone's consumer surplus becomes producer surplus. It's a difficult problem; nobody has a perfect solution.

      I know it's not as much fun, but you might want to actually learn *something* about the problem before you form such a strong opinion.

    2. Re:As I've said before. by Wildclaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, by your analysis any array of binary content has no value?

      He is correct. Binary content does not have any market value. It does have real value (which is the value in the eye of the buyer). And it does have artificial value which comes from government enforced violence to prevent copying. But, no, it doesn't have any (or at least extremely low) market value due to the way it can be replicated. It is basic supply and demand theory. Economy 101.

      Copyright and patent law reduces the actually usage of information due to artificial costs, in fact making society poorer as well as reducing the general efficiency of any industry involved. The only winners are the top dogs of the content industry (that pick up all the winnings at the expense of the bottom 90% plus the rest of the economy) and the government officials who get to claim that the GDP is higher and collect taxes on it, even though it is wasted money for the whole economy.

    3. Re:As I've said before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it"
      -Publilius Syrus

      Sorry to destroy your economic theories here, but they charge $15 for a CD because there are people thay pay $15 for a CD. If no one bought their media for the rediculous prices they charge, then they would have no choice but to lower them. Until then you can blame the consumers at large for the current prices.

    4. Re:As I've said before. by GunpowderTreason · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if in some country, say India, it's illegal to eat beef I can come throw your ass in jail next time you're coming out of McDonalds? That's what we're talking about here. It's not even right or wrong it's a lack of jurisdiction. "Officer I swear it's a McChicken. Look in the bag. Look in the F'ing bag!"

    5. Re:As I've said before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Let's face it. You wouldn't. You'd sit back until -somebody- pays that $100 for their services, and then get the $0.00 copy from there. But that somebody sure ain't you.

      What's wrong with that?

      The creator gets paid $100, which he considers a fair price.

      The person paying the $100 gets a good deal, since otherwise he wouldn't have paid it. He feels strongly enough about this work being created that he's willing to put his own money up.

      The person who waits and gets a copy for free gets to enjoy the work. He doesn't pay any money, but he "pays" by taking the risk that the work won't be made at all. He doesn't feel strongly enough about it to put up his own money, so that risk is acceptable to him.

      So... where's the problem?

  9. Re:Isn't it all copyrighted? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I haven't read the fine article, but that was my thought too... so do they have to delete their torrents for Ubuntu and Fedora which are "copyrighted" too?

  10. They have removed torrents... by Animaether · · Score: 4, Insightful

    - empty torrents
    - torrents with viruses
    - child pornography torrents

    The fact that TPB suggested that they remove such torrents actually worked against them in this case; after all, it means they do perform (some) filtering.

    Judgment PDF: http://www.boek9.nl/www.delex-backoffice.nl/uploads/file/Boek9%20/Boek%209%20Uitspraken/Auteursrecht/Rb%20ASD%20Neij%20-%20Pirate%20Bay%20%2022%20oktober%202009.pdf
    Judgment HTML: http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/resultpage.aspx?snelzoeken=true&searchtype=ljn&ljn=BK1067&u_ljn=BK1067

    Both in Dutch; I wouldn't rely on babelfish/google translate, and user-provided translations tend to be rife with inexact translations of legal terms... should be a proper English translation in due time.

    I'll translate the section that mentions these active filter claims, however...

    5.9.2. In addition it has not been contested that contributors of The Pirate Bay are actively involved with torrents that are uploaded by users. Torrents that point to empty files, child pornography or viruses are removed. The Pirate Bay also offers the ability to chat with one of its contributors about the available torrents.

    This is one of the findings under...

    5.9. Remains the question of whether or not The Pirate Bay has illegaly acted against The Brein Foundation [Stichting Brein] by offering Torrents with which copyrighted files may be exchanged, as they (Brein) have noted in a subsidiary claim.

    So as part of the findings of 5.9, determining whether TPB has acted illegaly against Brein, the active filtering issue has weighed against them; if they can filter those, then they should be able to filter torrents pointing to files of parties who are signed up with Brein.

    1. Re:They have removed torrents... by garcia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah but those are self-filtered, they aren't done so at the request of some foreign legal department (please note the "law firms" part of the quoted text).

  11. Time to extend laws to other locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    So...a judge has issued an order to delete content on a website not hosted in his country, for a law that doesn't exist... and is totally legal in the nation what it is hosted...?

    From the jurisdiction of the supreme court of my living room--I'd like to offer a reward of $0.25 who enforces my decision to have the judge deleted.

    Don't worry, no trial is needed in the principality of Anonymous Coward--random evidence, and the presentations of anyone are sufficient and permitted by my rules of evidence. You may notice my opinion changes from day to day, and even post to post. But hey--that's a fickle legal system for you.

    What's that you say, the laws of my living room don't apply in another country? Maybe he should have thought of that before he overextended his own authority...

  12. They can turn this into an opportunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I haven't RTFA, but that seems like a great deal to me. Assuming the penalties don't scale or result in arrest, and assuming the Bay cuts its official staff to one person, that's a $2.7 million per year license to distribute unlimited copies of all copyrighted works in existence. I bet that's a lot less than Apple or other content providers pay.

  13. baseless panic by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    free television, then the vcr, then the dvd, now the internet: it was all supposed to destroy the movie theatre. it hasn't. movies will still sell tickets even if their dvd market is $0. sitting in your basement by yourself watching transformers on a 17 inch monitor and tinny speakers is just AWESOME dude ;-P even if you had a legal dvd

    you can get a 55" HD tv and dolby surround sound in your rec room? oh right, because everyone can afford that. oh, and all your friends will show up on cue every time you feel the sudden urge to watch a movie, right? not to mention the new frontier of 3D content, 3 stories high immersive IMAX theatres, etc

    fact: if hollywood gave away every movie it made for free on the internet on the same day as release, they would still be rolling in dough. because watching a movie at home does not, and will never replace the experience of seeing it in a theatre. even with all the crying babies and the cell phones (yes, there are people for which crying babies and cell phones has totally destroyed their desire to ever go theatres again: all 13 dozen of you in the us population: a small minor cranky fringe who are so perversely overly sensitive and overly reacting)

    the modern movie theatre replaces, in effect, older shared cultural experiences like going to church, the public debate forum of old greece, going to see plays in victorian times, etc. we are social creatures. we crave fellowship, we know we are in the darkness with a couple hundred other people (munching popcorn: their presence is felt) and this validates our emotional experience in a movie: we SHARE it

    why do you write on slashdot? you wish to SHARE your feelings and thoughts. this is what it means in many ways to be human. when you go to a horror movie, and you gasp at a shocking scene, the experience in heightened when you also hear a woman shriek behind you. when you hear laughter at a comedy in the audience around you, you in turn laugh louder and feel more mirthful. why do television sitcoms pipe canned laughter over their shows? its a genuine human sociological effect

    the point? if all of intellectual property laws were erased, we would see an INCREASE in cultural output and quality, without the laws getting in the way of artists attempting to create art (and running into interference from the great grandson of a guy who wrote a song he wants to use on a soundtrack, etc), and without distributors telling us what to watch/ read/ listen to (internet sites devoted to rating output would do that instead)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  14. Re:Solution by nschubach · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Censorship.

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  15. Don't try this at home, kids. by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They should just provide a link on the site to the online version of the court order listing all the links they're supposed to delete. Then let them sue the court.

    Pull a stunt like this on an American judge and you will be fitted for a 6x8 cinder block cell and a bunk mate named Big Mike.