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."

4 of 455 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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!
  2. 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.

  3. 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.