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."
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.
.
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!"
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.
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.
From: http://thepiratebay.org/legal
I wonder if that still applies these days.
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
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?
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.
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?
It could quite reasonably be argued that the torrent is a derived work.
- 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...
This is one of the findings under...
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.
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...
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
Yeah, because proving a court's rulings inconsistent is the best way to win in the real world. See here for another example.
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
Censorship.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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