Belgian Court Order May Be Too Specific To Actually Block Pirate Bay Domain

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Belgian Court Order May Be Too Specific To Actually Block Pirate Bay Domain

Posted by timothy on Saturday October 8, 2011 @11:53AM from the not-responsible-for-thinkographic-errors dept.

bs0d3 writes "Recently, many people from Belgium have been joining The Pirate Bay's and Telecomix's IRC channels, asking for help with the Telecomix DNS, saying that it doesn't work to access www.thepiratebay.org. This is true. The court was very specific in its order, which was to block the domains www.thepiratebay.org, www.thepiratebay.net, www.thepiratebay.com, www.thepiratebay.nu, www.thepiratebay.se, www.piratebay.no, and www.ripthepiratebay.com, or else face a daily penalty of 1000 EUR for every day when defendants do not implement such 'DNS-blocking' in their DNS-servers'. So, obviously in defiance of that, people testing their DNS servers go to the domain www.thepiratebay.org — except, thepiratebay doesn't have the www domain turned on. At one point it redirected to the main page, at the URL thepiratebay.org; now it doesn't, probably because of negligence from the admins. What's interesting is that the court only ordered the block of the www subdomains, so if an ISP wants to make a fuss they should be able to avoid the penalties until a later ruling."

140 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Don't bother clicking TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 11:58 · Score: 3, Informative

Don't bother clicking on TFA, it's the exact same thing that's in the summary, no more content, no less content.
1. Re:Don't bother clicking TFA by Dyinobal · 2011-10-08 12:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is slashdot no one bothers to read the TFA
2. Re:Don't bother clicking TFA by Pharmboy · 2011-10-08 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  Then it would appear that for once, /. has a good summary. Not every "story" needs to be 4 or 5 pages long anyway.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
3. Re:Don't bother clicking TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  I read TFA once, you insensitive clod!
  It wasn't worth it, btw.
4. Re:Don't bother clicking TFA by bs0d3 · 2011-10-08 13:58 · Score: 2
  
  ya, apparently the law allows me to copy/paste my own articles without asking myself permission
5. Re:Don't bother clicking TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 14:49 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, so this is just blogspam, then?
6. Re:Don't bother clicking TFA by bs0d3 · 2011-10-08 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  oh, i dont care if you go to the blog or not from here, just thought it was a funny story to share
7. Re:Don't bother clicking TFA by Nemyst · 2011-10-08 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  Which TFA? Link spam is in full force here.
8. Re:Don't bother clicking TFA by maxwell+demon · 2011-10-08 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  You mean: "Which FA?"
  After "Which" you don't use an article, and the T in "TFA" stands for "the".
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
9. Re:Don't bother clicking TFA by couchslug · 2011-10-09 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  "This is slashdot no one bothers to read the TFA"
  tl;dr
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
10. Re:Don't bother clicking TFA by monkyyy · 2011-10-09 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  tl;dr
  
  --
  warning pointless sig
11. Re:Don't bother clicking TFA by groslyunderpaid · 2011-10-10 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  Do you pull money out of your ATM machine? And does it require you to enter your PIN number? I would assume so, given your views on reading the TFA....
lol DNS blocking by Dunbal · 2011-10-08 12:04 · Score: 2

Of course you could always change your DNS to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 and avoid DNS blocking entirely...

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
1. Re:lol DNS blocking by causality · 2011-10-08 12:15 · Score: 2
  
  Of course you could always change your DNS to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 and avoid DNS blocking entirely...
  Running your own caching DNS server is so ridiculously easy, I'm surprised so many people trust $MEGACORP to do it for them. Don't get me wrong, in terms of load on the root servers it works for me that most others aren't doing this. I enjoy lots of things that would go away if everyone did it.
  
  It's a shame that assuming responsibility of your own experience where it is reasonable to do so isn't precisely popular. We place far too much trust in random strangers to do too many things for us that we could do ourselves. This isn't at all like trying to be your own doctor or electrician, where the result could be quite disastrous. Still, if Establishment/authoritarian types start thinking that DNS is their one-stop solution for easy censorship, local caching DNS servers may become more common. Failing that, there are foreign proxies.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
2. Re:lol DNS blocking by icebraining · 2011-10-08 12:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why wouldn't one trust someone else to run DNS? It's not like it's difficult to change if they start hijacking NXDOMAINs or censoring.
  Besides, most of the censorship has been applied on the root servers themselves due to all the domain seizures by US authorities, so it's not like running your own caching server solves that.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
3. Re:lol DNS blocking by Qzukk · 2011-10-08 13:17 · Score: 2
  
  It's not like it's difficult to change if they start hijacking NXDOMAINs or censoring.
  Would you know it if they did censor? Hell, if I got some random ad page when I type a url, I'd assume it was a typosquatter. What would a less techsavvy person do? Call the ISP? "Hey I can't get to example.com" "Your connection is fine, example.com must be down" "oh ok".
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
4. Re:lol DNS blocking by whoever57 · 2011-10-08 13:55 · Score: 2
  
  Why wouldn't one trust someone else to run DNS?
  
  Because ISPs have a history of not respecting RFCs? For example a lot of large ISPs used to (and may still do) ignore the TTL data for a zone and just use a TTL of 3 days.
  
  It's not like it's difficult to change
  But why wait to change? I have shown that ISPs don't run proper DNS servers, and you stated that it is easy to change, so what are you waiting for?
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
5. Re:lol DNS blocking by staalmannen · 2011-10-08 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed... I am currently living in Belgium and did not know that there was an ISP DNS block to the pirate bay (I just checked again and it worked)... coincidentally I am using the google DNS:es. It seems like a rather toothless way of blocking access to a specific site.
6. Re:lol DNS blocking by ggeens · 2011-10-08 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed... I am currently living in Belgium and did not know that there was an ISP DNS block to the pirate bay (I just checked again and it worked)... coincidentally I am using the google DNS:es. It seems like a rather toothless way of blocking access to a specific site.
  Also from Belgium, using the regular ISP DNS.
  No problem accessing thepiratebay.com. www.thepiratebay.com forwards to depiraatbaai.be, which points to the same site.
  
  --
  WWTTD?
7. Re:lol DNS blocking by icebraining · 2011-10-08 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  You haven't shown anything. You claim that some do. That's fine, except mine doesn't*. So again, why should I change?
  * I have a couple of my own domains, one of them which has a very low TTL since it's running on a dynamic IP. My ISP updates as soon as it's expected.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
8. Re:lol DNS blocking by icebraining · 2011-10-08 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  But I'm not a less techsavvy person, so why are we talking about them?
  Yes, if I got an ad page when I was expecting a real website, I'd google the name of the site - to check their cache/screenshot - and probably dig the domain using my secondary DNS.
  But I don't remember the last time I got an ad page I wasn't expecting.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
9. Re:lol DNS blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 22:41 · Score: 0
  
  It is funny. As much as the government cracks down on crime it seems to me to generally be completely ineffective. It doesn't matter what you look at either. Look at piracy, look at speeding, look at anything at all. The government may have had an impacted in reducing smoking slightly by outlawing it in many public places. Even that though I'd question. Have we not been on a slow decline for ages? Is it really each step by anti-smoking groups which led us to this point and government action? Have all the little things (no advertising, warnings, and other things) really had an impact? Or are people just more aware today and it is socially acceptable to quit? Did we ever need these laws? What impact have they really had? Piracy is not seen as wrong.... and we continue to see answers to crack downs on it.
  If you want to see my point check out the following site. It beats Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime by a long shot. It probably helps that it isn't dependent on Microsoft though....
  http://www.quicksilverscreen.im
10. Re:lol DNS blocking by TheLink · 2011-10-08 23:33 · Score: 1
  
  But I don't remember the last time I got an ad page I wasn't expecting.
  But how would you know if stuff is being censored or changed?
  I've noticed an ISP tampering with some of my http connections, but this was only because noscript was preventing certain requests (I couldn't post data to certain sites after the tampering). So I switched to https where possible. But if they did it in other ways I might not have noticed.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
11. Re:lol DNS blocking by icebraining · 2011-10-09 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  I think I'd have noticed it by now (especially since I use the web on other ISPs regularly).
  Besides, even if I changed my DNS - even to use the root servers - I would I know if they weren't hijacking it and replacing the responses with their own?
  Nothing is truly secure; but I see no reason to believe they are doing that (nor can I even find any motive for them to do it).
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
12. Re:lol DNS blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-09 15:32 · Score: 0
  
  ...Besides, most of the censorship has been applied on the root servers themselves due to all the domain seizures by US authorities, so it's not like running your own caching server solves that.
  That is bullshit. Nobody is touching the root servers... Yes, the various governments are applying censorships to the ccTLDs (and in the of the US, the gTLDs), but they're very explicitly not touching the root zone.
  The moment they did, it's quite likely that we'd see a flurry of alternative roots out there. The reason there aren't that many alternative roots today, is that the root itself is quite uninteresting and easy to modify, since it pretty much just links to the TLDs, which is where all the ownership issues lie.
  The real battle for DNS censorship lies with the TLDs, the root is irrelevant, anyone can replicate it and remove any introduced censorship.
13. Re:lol DNS blocking by icebraining · 2011-10-09 21:25 · Score: 1
  
  Your post is technically correct but irrelevant. My point is that you can't escape such censorship contacting the root servers directly.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
An old classic by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 12:05 · Score: 1

The people making the rules don't understand how to make them effective
1. Re:An old classic by monkyyy · 2011-10-09 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  the people who understand how to make them effective, 99% of the time refuse to do so
  
  --
  warning pointless sig
Classic problem by causality · 2011-10-08 12:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

One could make the case that judges don't generally understand technology, and it would be a valid one. Yet I think this points to a deeper and much older issue.

It's the difference between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". Obviously the intent was to make the Pirate Bay Web site unreachable. Obviously such an oversight was unintended. Yet the ISPs receive very specific instructions and are only looking after their own financial interests by following them to the letter.

You see the same thing everywhere in the USA, particularly with anything regarding the First and Fourth Amendments. To make up an example, when the pre-Industrial Founders talked about "papers and effects" should that mean "computers and cell phones"? Obviously. Who seriously thinks it wouldn't? They didn't want the government to screw around with private individuals without an evidence-backed good reason and due process. The intent is not difficult to discern. The Founders' notions about the proper role of government are not unknown. Free speech zones, you say? Does anyone really think the likes of Jefferson and Madison wanted the government to easily brush aside those who would speak against it? Why was this ever even a controversy?

The Constitution and most other basic laws are not so difficult to understand. The only reason one needs to be a "scholar" is to find clever ways to play word games so you can twist it around and do what was never intended. It's the same deal with this ruling. The intention is pretty damned clear (too bad one cannot say that about most tax codes). The effect is very much the opposite.

The US is becoming a nation of damned Pharisees. The entire system is run by lawyers whose interests include making law as incomprehensible and inaccessible to the average person as possible. That's how they make themselves indisposable and advance their diabolical profession. I think most nations have gone down this road. I don't live in Belgium but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they were also this way. So we can laugh at this judge who probably looks pretty stupid right now, making rules for what he so clearly does not understand, but the deeper problems it brings up are neither easy to solve nor limited to Belgium.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
1. Re:Classic problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 12:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Relying on the spirit of the law is great when the ones interpreting the "spirit" interpret is correctly and don't abuse the system. Unfortunately, there's that whole human thing that gets in the way...
2. Re:Classic problem by s-whs · 2011-10-08 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  The US is becoming a nation of damned Pharisees. The entire system is run by lawyers whose interests include making law as incomprehensible and inaccessible to the average person as possible. That's how they make themselves indisposable and advance their diabolical profession. I think most nations have gone down this road. I don't live in Belgium but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they were also this way. So we can laugh at this judge who probably looks pretty stupid right now, making rules for what he so clearly does not understand, but the deeper problems it brings up are neither easy to solve nor limited to Belgium.
  
  I sort of agree, but sometimes it is fun to find workarounds in for example rules that unnecessarily restrict people in what they can do. I've done things like that with the StVZO bicyle lighting rules (from Germany) on my website, because the rules as they are, are very strict and limit getting more power out of the dynamo, but the intent of the law was different: In particular to ensure interoperability of components and make sure oncoming traffic does not get blinded by light above the horizon. So, taking the spirit of the law I wanted to circumvent the letter of the law, and I give some examples on how to do it. This is the exact opposite of this situation. So I would argue that sometimes there are cases where it's useful (Note that it could take many many years before there is a sane rule change which would allow what I proposed in bicycle headlamps)
  
  Now I come the spirit of the law: If the judge wants to block access to the piratebay, why doesn't he in his ruling say: "Providers should where technically possible not allow access to 'The pirate bay', this includes no access to the domains www.thepiratebay.org etc.". In that case it would be much clearer in giving examples, and taking the spirit of the law into it. Going around that would definitely show a breaking of the law (spirit and letter) or rather a ruling on the law, by a provider.
3. Re:Classic problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 12:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You see the same thing everywhere in the USA, particularly with anything regarding the First and Fourth Amendments. To make up an example, when the pre-Industrial Founders talked about "papers and effects" should that mean "computers and cell phones"? Obviously. Who seriously thinks it wouldn't? They didn't want the government to screw around with private individuals without an evidence-backed good reason and due process.
  
  That's an interesting choice of an example, since "effects" includes computers and cell phones -- the letter and spirit agree entirely here, and both are violated with abandon (against ordinary subjects) by the uniformed thuggery, secure in the knowledge that the robed aristocracy will rule in their favor 4 times of 5.
  It's not an issue of "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law", it's an issue of "the law" vs "law enforcement".
4. Re:Classic problem by JAlexoi · 2011-10-08 12:59 · Score: 2
  
  A) A court decision does not equate to a law in any Civil law countries, which Belgium is.
  B) Rarely does a judge in a Civil legal system interpret the spirit of the law(unless that is explicitly stated in the law). Interpreting the laws' is prerogative of constitutional/supreme courts.
  
  The American obsession with people that died almost 2 centuries ago, that lived in a totally different world and had a different world view, is rather disturbing...
5. Re:Classic problem by nedlohs · 2011-10-08 13:15 · Score: 2
  
  If a court order tell your to do X then you do X. You don't do X in spirit, you do to the letter what they said. Well assuming you are contesting the order in some way anyway.
  In this case you block the names they said to block. Blocking more just opens you up to being sued by the name holder.
  The court can update the order/make another one, if they didn't actually mean what they said.
6. Re:Classic problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 13:34 · Score: 0
  
  And that's the problem with interpreting spirit. Many times, it's not so clear cut and open to many interpretations. Like analyzing a book, there can be many possible interpretations when it involves words. Who is to say, which one is *completely* correct as these laws are created by often by a separate groups of people often with their own interpretations that went in when created and approving that very law.
  If we allow such loose interpretations of laws, that also opens it up for abuse as well as justice. The reason why laws are so specific is to avoid such uncertainties when interpreting laws as much as possible to provide a fair and certain baseline at which to judge the accused. Unfortunately, you can only have it one way, complete trust in judges with loose laws (extremely open to abuse) or specific laws that don't cover all basis (extremely complex).
7. Re:Classic problem by sjames · 2011-10-08 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  The repeated violations of the Constitution go well beyond violating it's spirit, they include making up a fictional spirit based on a despot's wet dream and violating the letter of it as well.
  The Cellphone rulings are a great example. Your cellphone is one of your effects, so the letter of the Constitution as well as the spirit insist that a warrant is necessary to search it. There are no exceptions.
8. Re:Classic problem by martin-boundary · 2011-10-08 13:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Thanks, I was going to point this out too. Belgium uses civil law which is very different from the English common law that Americans have copied. What a Belgian judge decides cannot be meaningfully interpreted as a precedent in American terms.
9. Re:Classic problem by xstonedogx · 2011-10-08 13:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You should be more disturbed about the American obsession with feudalism.
10. Re:Classic problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 15:04 · Score: 0
  
  Now I come the spirit of the law: If the judge wants to block access to the piratebay, why doesn't he in his ruling say: "Providers should where technically possible not allow access to 'The pirate bay', this includes no access to the domains www.thepiratebay.org etc.". In that case it would be much clearer in giving examples, and taking the spirit of the law into it. Going around that would definitely show a breaking of the law (spirit and letter) or rather a ruling on the law, by a provider.
  Please allow me to follow you instruction to the letter and possibly the spirit as far as I can tell from your example: The pirate bay
  Do you see the problem with trying to write too generic laws that are open to interpretation?
11. Re:Classic problem by dbIII · 2011-10-08 15:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  could make the case that judges don't generally understand technology, and it would be a valid one
  On the other hand this could be the equivalent of a $1 fine because the law says the Judge has to impose some sort of penalty. Somebody of the course of this trial has to have told the Judge that DNS is analogous to the name and number in a phone book but the number is the important thing and can have several names pointed at it. Judges are rarely stupid especially in places where they have to earn the post through merit instead of election - they mostly get portrayed as stupid by those that have a vested interest in reducing the power of Judges (eg. politicians).
12. Re:Classic problem by Kjella · 2011-10-08 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  So when YouTube receives a takedown request obviously the intent is to block that content from being on YouTube. Therefore it should be YouTube's responsibility to act in the spirit of that ruling and find and block any and all variations of it. If they don't, the copyright holder should be able to sue them for not following the spirit of the order. Do you see how easily I took something reasonable and turned it into something completely unreasonable? That is what starts happening when you mess with things like that. What if the ISP screws up and blocks some other domain which they thought pointed to TPB but actually didn't? Not only can they be prosecuted for taking down too little, but also too much. That is why they should follow the order to the letter and let any errors be the fault of the court.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
13. Re:Classic problem by Charliemopps · 2011-10-08 15:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, there's not. There is no "interpretation" of the constitution. Despite what many would lead you to believe, it's a very literal document and our government is in violation of every single amendment in it. Most teenagers could read it and tell you very directly what's meant and all agree.
  
  But then we get into the realm of "Those guys wrote that thing a long long time ago, they didn't foresee all the stuff we've got to deal with now. They were dumb... old fashion. They didn't know about machine guns! Computers! Satellites!" No... they didn't know about that stuff, but they were not dumb, or old fashion. They were some of the most progressive people of their time. They fostered the most important revolution in human history and then overthrew the most powerful empire on earth with nothing more than farmers.
  
  The best example is the right to bare arms... it's not the right to bare hunting rifles. The reason that amendment is there is so the citizens of the united states could violently overthrow the federal government should they feel the need. The armies of the federal government were never meant to be armed in such a way they could defeat the citizenry. The amendment is there to prevent a military coup.
  
  Another example is the 1st amendment. Which is routinely trampled on for something as simple as "you're blocking traffic"
  
  It's easy, it's only made complicated by those that wish to read something into the document that simply is not there.
14. Re:Classic problem by superdave80 · 2011-10-08 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  Which is routinely trampled on for something as simple as "you're blocking traffic"
  I agree with your post, except for this statement. How is blocking traffic considered 'speech'? Why would I need to block traffic as part of exercising my right to free speech?
15. Re:Classic problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 16:10 · Score: 0
  
  There is no "interpretation" of the constitution.
  There are plenty of interpretations of the constitution. Some of them "wrong" and some of them "right." But who has the power to interpret it? The potentially (and likely) corrupt government. I think It'd be even worse if these people were allowed to play guessing games to try to guess the "spirit" of the constitution. That's just too much. I'd rather have it be read as a literal document, as you said.
16. Re:Classic problem by mooingyak · 2011-10-08 17:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No, there's not. There is no "interpretation" of the constitution.
  Of course there is. One person reads it, and understands it to mean one thing. Another person reads it, and understands it to mean something different and incompatible with the first person's understanding. Clearly one of them is wrong. No matter how direct and literal you strive to be in writing a document, there are always going to be corner cases where the intent is not obvious nor universally seen as one and only one way.
  
  --
  William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
17. Re:Classic problem by niteshifter · 2011-10-08 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  Which is routinely trampled on for something as simple as "you're blocking traffic"
  Simple? No it isn't. The first amendment does not supersede:
  A single parents need (and right) to get home to the kid(s) before the sitter leaves / day care closes, or to the school / hospital if the child takes sick, etc.
  The right not to die in an ambulance after the stroke, coronary, aneurysm, whatever because it's snarled in traffic.
  There's two to get ya started on thinking on what could possibly go wrong with intentionally blocking traffic.
18. Re:Classic problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  To go even more OT:
  
  They fostered the most important revolution in human history and then overthrew the most powerful empire on earth with nothing more than farmers.
  You forgot the aid of only three of the biggest empires of the time: the French, Spanish and the Dutch.
19. Re:Classic problem by stephanruby · 2011-10-08 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'm originally from France, not Belgium, so I can't say anything about Belgium for sure.
  But from a French standpoint, I think that the US legal system is all about the "letter of the law", not the "spirit of the law".
  And if a French judge told me to block www.piratebay.com, www.piratebay.net, and www.piratebay.org, assuming I was an ISP in France of course, I would never even dream of playing word games with the judge. In France, that kind of "letter of the law" defense would only enrage such a judge and get me severely punished as a result. Like I said, the legal mindset in France is very different from the legal mindset in the US, and I wouldn't be surprised if Belgium wasn't more like France than it is like the US.
20. Re:Classic problem by findoutmoretoday · 2011-10-08 18:38 · Score: 1
  
  <quote>So we can laugh at this judge who probably looks pretty stupid right now, making rules for what he so clearly does not understand, but the deeper problems it brings up are neither easy to solve nor limited to Belgium.</quote> Or most probably it is a clever judge: You want us to stop piratebay. We should, but how on earth are we going to do that? ..... Those URL's, are you sure? OK granted, next case.
21. Re:Classic problem by Kjella · 2011-10-08 18:50 · Score: 2
  
  No, there's not. There is no "interpretation" of the constitution.
  "The way I read it is the only way of reading it"
  
  Most teenagers could read it and tell you very directly what's meant and all agree.
  Try it. When the results are anything but, I'm sure you'll argue they've all been poisoned by whatever.
  
  The best example is the right to bare arms... it's not the right to bare hunting rifles.
  Bear. The world is bear. And in 1939 the Supreme Court said:
  
  In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
  Then in 2010 they said:
  
  (f) None of the Courtâ(TM)s precedents forecloses the Courtâ(TM)s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47â"54.
  A sawed-off shotgun would be an excellent weapon for close self-defense, but it's not protected by the second amendment because it's not usable in a militia? They can pretend not to have changed their minds, but I would clearly say the Supreme Court of 1939 and the Supreme Court of 2010 had two vastly different interpretations of the second amendment. And if the supreme justices that are experts on constitutional law have had different interpretations, you can bet a bunch of teenagers will.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
22. Re:Classic problem by SuricouRaven · 2011-10-08 19:56 · Score: 2
  
  And the home-field advantage - the british were half a world away, their supply lines stretched to breaking.
  
  Remember who they were fighting. The British empire. Lots of people talk about taking over the world, but we got 25% of the way there. The largest empire ever seen by geographic area, and second largest by population. We came, we saw, we slaughtered and oppressed and we RULED. You think we were some pushover, to be defeated by a bunch of farmers? No, they had help. A lot of help.
23. Re:Classic problem by SuricouRaven · 2011-10-08 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, weapons now are not the same as weapons then. We've got weapons capable of blowing up a sizeable city now. You can get full-auto drum-fed shotguns light enough to duel wield (And yes, fpsrussia has done it). If the second amendment grants the right to own a pistol, what about a shutgun? Combat shotgun? Land mines? Loaded bomber plane? Heavy artillary? Missiles? How about a few nuclear weapons? Somewhere, a line has to be drawn between 'right to bear arms' and 'Right not to be killed by some crazy person having a very bad day and going postal with his grenade launcher.'
24. Re:Classic problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 20:48 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't? So because it might cause others some inconvenience, the first amendment should simply be discarded? We'll have to disagree there (even if, in the worst case, someone could die).
25. Re:Classic problem by Leebert · 2011-10-08 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  our government is in violation of every single amendment in it.
  
  Come on now, there's no need for such an overstatement. I, for one, have not been demanded to quarter soldiers in my home.
26. Re:Classic problem by Leebert · 2011-10-08 23:16 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  If the second amendment grants the right to own a pistol, what about a shutgun? Combat shotgun? Land mines? Loaded bomber plane? Heavy artillary? Missiles? How about a few nuclear weapons?
  I personally believe that the 2nd amendment *does* allow me to have nuclear weapons. I also believe that to be insane. However, the answer to that insanity is not to ignore the law, but to modify the amendment to reflect present-day reality.
27. Re:Classic problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  So, hang on a minute here: according to you, the 2nd Amendment should give me the right to own a nuclear warhead, and the 1st Amendment should give me the right to stand with it in the middle of Times Square threatening to detonate it?
  
  Thank God Slashdotters are never going to be on SCOTUS.
28. Re:Classic problem by richie2000 · 2011-10-08 23:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Bear. The world is bear.
  Word. The word is word.
  
  --
  Money for nothing, pix for free
29. Re:Classic problem by cynyr · 2011-10-09 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  meaning cell phones, are not papers or persons... nor are your computer, digital camera, mp3 player, e-reader, your call history(all digitally stored these days), your amazon purchase history, Google search history, or your current pay if it is direct deposit... should I go on? So yes there needs to be some spirt applied, or just about the whole damn thing needs to be written.
  As far as i can tell it does not provide any rights to hermaphrodites when read literally as they are neither man nor woman. Also of note that if one were writing a literal document, shouldn't every term be defined in a non-ambiguous way in the document itself?
  I do agree that literal is better than just the spirit, but there are some holes in it for this day and age then.
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
30. Re:Classic problem by cynyr · 2011-10-09 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  because you and 3000 friends are holding signs and walking from somewhere to somewhere else while shouting your message (commonly know as a protest march). Typiclly 3000 people will not fit on the sidewalk, and so you end up holding up traffic. Yes you are breaking some laws, jaywalking for example, but to me as long as you are not damaging property you should be free to march and shout if you like to.
  As for the two somewheres, pick two important buildings to the opposition of your cause and walk between them, or think "around the roads of the Microsoft campus.
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
31. Re:Classic problem by dunkelfalke · 2011-10-09 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  I've done things like that with the StVZO bicyle lighting rules (from Germany) on my website
  URL please.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
32. Re:Classic problem by KingBenny · 2011-10-09 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  i think you overestimate the capabilities of the average user here. If they need a workaround it'll be in the hands of 'underground' people who know where the on/off button on the pc is located. This should give the parasites who actually sell copied dvds a field day however, like with any measure like this since al capone it helps nothing but to enrich minorities. Its blatant how they just overrule this decision while they otherwise claim its impossible once the ruling is out. The worldwide legalists once more demonstrate their dark powers. There's a lot of scandal going on here atm anyway. Raids on companies who are forced to pay immediate fines or else their gear gets confiscated, leaving them with bare desks to do the job on. All powered by one particularly notorious judge. It's a festering hole. Whole police corps under investigation. Moodies pointing the finger at us, the gov't rolling over for Sarkozy, it really looks bad, i'm afraid this is going all the way to greeceland :p (we have more people in govt service than they have and about the same amount of inhabitants, plus we have an upkeep to pay for five different governments who are entwined here) it can impossibly work the way its going , some rats have already abandoned ship. Organized crime is gonna have a boost if this keeps up
  
  --
  Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
33. Re:Classic problem by Charliemopps · 2011-10-09 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  You missed my last sentence: "It's easy, it's only made complicated by those that wish to read something into the document that simply is not there."
34. Re:Classic problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-09 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  Which is routinely trampled on for something as simple as "you're blocking traffic"
  I agree with your post, except for this statement. How is blocking traffic considered 'speech'? Why would I need to block traffic as part of exercising my right to free speech?
  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  I think he was referring to the peaceably assemble part. I can see the case for the right of cops to heard a mob to get a fire truck or ambulance through an intersection they decided to assemble in but that's about it.
35. Re:Classic problem by Kjella · 2011-10-09 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Just on that note, the 18th century was primitive but not that primitive. They had cannons and other large, military equipment of far greater destructive power than a musketman. Even though it just takes one person to actually fire the cannon, anything crew-operated or too big to carry has never been considered covered by the second amendment.
  Of course that still leaves assault rifles, light machine guns, combat shotguns, grenade launchers, sniper rifles and hand grenades up for debate since they're all individual weapons. But the second amendment don't give you a right to own tanks today anymore than owning cannons back then.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
36. Re:Classic problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-09 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't overthrow the British with only farmers - they had some trained troops and a hell of a lot of naval support from the French who effectively stopped the British from landing reinforcements. That, coupled with guerrilla (really terrorist) tactics was what won the war. I'm sure we'd all love to hear about the plucky underdog that beat the great empire, but that does a real injustice to the meticulous planning and impressive state-building diplomacy that went into the rebellion. Had they been just farmers they would have been fools to try, and would have been slaughtered. You do a real injustice to them to term them as such.
37. Re:Classic problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-09 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  There is no "interpretation" of the constitution.
  I'm going to assume that you are a young person and not laugh at this. Please think this through before making assumptions like that...
38. Re:Classic problem by SuricouRaven · 2011-10-09 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  A reasonable interpretation. A law can have very strange consequences if applied to circumstances it's authors did not foresee.
39. Re:Classic problem by SuricouRaven · 2011-10-09 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  If I were an overstressed person going postal, grenades would be my weapon of choice if I could get them. My target would be a primary school. Partly because of the vulnerability of all those children packed into such a small space for the morning gathering, but mostly because of the sheer infamy. Kill random people on the street, you're a serial killer. Target children, and you're a legend.
40. Re:Classic problem by dkf · 2011-10-09 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  To me, as long as people are selfishly and deliberately trying to prevent others from going about their lives, you should be free to run them over.
  Then you get to be free to be prosecuted for vehicular manslaughter. Or maybe murder. Freedom's not nice unless you extend it fairly to others too.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
41. Re:Classic problem by snowgirl · 2011-10-09 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  So we can laugh at this judge who probably looks pretty stupid right now, making rules for what he so clearly does not understand, but the deeper problems it brings up are neither easy to solve nor limited to Belgium.
  ... Why would we make fun of the judge? He most likely didn't write the order, the moving party usually drafts an order and presents it to the judge, who then signs it.
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
42. Re:Classic problem by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-10-09 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly one of them is wrong.
  Not so clear actually. If there is actually an ambiguity then by definition there is not a single correct interpretation.
  The trouble is that the alternative to ambiguity is the generality:specificity trade off. You can pass something that is both broad and unambiguous, but enforcing it would be absurd because you almost never want a blanket rule with no exceptions. So then you start adding exceptions and it soon gets so complicated that no one can follow it anymore.
  It seems like the only way to win is not to play the game.
43. Re:Classic problem by mgblst · 2011-10-09 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Nice troll, trolly McTrollPants. You had some of them here fooled.
44. Re:Classic problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-09 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  And of course the wogs beat you merely by letting the world see what a bunch of barbarous savages the supposedly noble white man was.
45. Re:Classic problem by gmhowell · 2011-10-09 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  Bear. The world is bear.
  Word. The word is word.
  And as we all know, bird is the word.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
46. Re:Classic problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-09 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  Bird. Bird is the word.
47. Re:Classic problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-09 21:20 · Score: 0
  
  Bear. The world is bear.
  Word. The word is word.
  the bird is the word?
48. Re:Classic problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-10 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  The best example is the right to bare arms... it's not the right to bare hunting rifles.
  Too right, it clearly means you're allowed to wear t-shirts and other garments with short or no sleeves.
49. Re:Classic problem by causality · 2011-10-10 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  So we can laugh at this judge who probably looks pretty stupid right now, making rules for what he so clearly does not understand, but the deeper problems it brings up are neither easy to solve nor limited to Belgium.
  ... Why would we make fun of the judge? He most likely didn't write the order, the moving party usually drafts an order and presents it to the judge, who then signs it.
  Because if you bring something to me that is fatally flawed and cannot possibly fulfill its stated purpose, I won't sign it?
  
  You might or might not agree with that, but it isn't exactly difficult to discern.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
50. Re:Classic problem by snowgirl · 2011-10-10 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  So we can laugh at this judge who probably looks pretty stupid right now, making rules for what he so clearly does not understand, but the deeper problems it brings up are neither easy to solve nor limited to Belgium.
  ... Why would we make fun of the judge? He most likely didn't write the order, the moving party usually drafts an order and presents it to the judge, who then signs it.
  Because if you bring something to me that is fatally flawed and cannot possibly fulfill its stated purpose, I won't sign it?
  You might or might not agree with that, but it isn't exactly difficult to discern.
  It's not his job to read the order and ensure that the order is not fatally flawed. Why? Because if it is fatally flawed, you're only hurting yourself. It's YOUR responsibility to ensure that your purposed orders are going to do what you want them to do. It's not the judge's place (usually) to hand-hold you and make sure you're getting what you want.
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Its not negligence to omit www by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 12:13 · Score: 0

Why make people type 4 extra keystrokes (most annoying on a portable device) to visit your site if the only thing on port 80 of that domain is a Webserver ?
Makes sense to do away with the subdomain prefix, nobody respects the traditional ftp. irc. www. anymore (bar the real OGs) sad but you can thank mobile devices/twittergen and crappy HID where inputting anything is a pain in the ass.
just CNAME the www subdomain to the main A record and url rewrite to get your visitors in the habit of losing the www
~s
1. Re:Its not negligence to omit www by julesh · 2011-10-08 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  You misunderstand. What's "negligent" is the fact that www.thepiratebay.org serves up a blank page, rather than a redirect or a copy of the content.
Alternative domain for Belgians by hydrofix · 2011-10-08 12:20 · Score: 4, Informative

The Pirate Bay has also already registered a domain specifically for those in Belgium, to work around the censorship order. http://depiraatbaai.be/ (Flemish Dutch for "The Pirate Bay")
This is not listed in the domains the court ordered to be blocked. TorrentFreak has the full story.
1. Re:Alternative domain for Belgians by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 16:23 · Score: 0
  
  Are they discriminating against French-speaking Belgians?
2. Re:Alternative domain for Belgians by corbettw · 2011-10-08 17:03 · Score: 2
  
  depiraatbaai? What kind of spelling is that. Stupid Flanders.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
3. Re:Alternative domain for Belgians by Arancaytar · 2011-10-08 18:01 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Stupid Sexy Flanders.
  fixed
4. Re:Alternative domain for Belgians by sg_oneill · 2011-10-08 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  corsairbaiebaie.be would be available too for the french speaking belgians too.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
5. Re:Alternative domain for Belgians by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 18:24 · Score: 0
  
  depiraatbaai? What kind of spelling is that. Stupid Flanders.
  That's what happens when you feed things through Google Translate.
6. Re:Alternative domain for Belgians by houghi · 2011-10-08 18:52 · Score: 2
  
  I can confirm this. I am in Belgium and am directed to http://depiraatbaai.be./ So just a bit of patience for the DNS servers to be updated and all will be well.
  All this has encouraged me to start using my own DNS. I know I could use Google, but why give them even more information then they already get.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
7. Re:Alternative domain for Belgians by unkiereamus · 2011-10-08 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, I spent my last mod point on a +funny much less worthy than this a couple days ago.
  
  --
  I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
8. Re:Alternative domain for Belgians by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 20:47 · Score: 0
  
  The Flemish court ruling does not apply to any ISP in the French part of Belgium, since they could not read it. (I'm not making this up!)
9. Re:Alternative domain for Belgians by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 20:52 · Score: 0
  
  depiraatbaai? What kind of spelling is that. Stupid Flanders.
  It is bad language, even in Flemish Dutch. It should be "depiratenbaai".
10. Re:Alternative domain for Belgians by drougie · 2011-10-09 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  I know I could use Google, but why give them even more information then they already get.
  Why not?
  
  --
  Calling out bogus battery capacity claims.
11. Re:Alternative domain for Belgians by mpe · 2011-10-09 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  The Pirate Bay has also already registered a domain specifically for those in Belgium, to work around the censorship order. http://depiraatbaai.be/ (Flemish Dutch for "The Pirate Bay")
  
  How soon before they also register lepiratebay.be or labaiedepirates.be ?
12. Re:Alternative domain for Belgians by Cant+use+a+slash+wtf · 2011-10-09 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  It feels like I'm downloading nothing at all.
  Nothing at all.
  Nothing at all.
Alternate domain names... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 12:22 · Score: 0

How about registering some alternate domains such as "yohoho.org" or "mehearties.org" or even "arrr.com".
Just sayin'
1. Re:Alternate domain names... by tomhudson · 2011-10-08 14:01 · Score: 2
  
  How about registering some alternate domains such as "yohoho.org" or "mehearties.org" or even "arrr.com".
  
  YOHOHO.ORG is taken, but MEHEARTIES.ORG is available.
  ARRR.COM? ... taken - for sale
  ARRRR.COM ... taken - has a pirates page
  ARRRRR.COM ... taken - redirects back to your own IP
  ARRRRRR.COM ... taken - see the Avast! TalkLikeAPirate keyboard accessory
  ARRRRRRR.COM ... taken - Industry42
  ARRRRRRRR.COM ... taken
  ARRRRRRRRR.COM ... taken - some wordpress blog started in august
  ARRRRRRRRRR.COM ... free!
2. Re:Alternate domain names... by compro01 · 2011-10-08 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  They're already got http://depiraatbaai.be/ set up.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
What real good is blocking DNS's? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 12:35 · Score: 0

I understand, the vast majority of the "users" out there probably have no clue what DNS even really is, but honestly - 30 seconds and a host file entry and I wouldn't need it to get to their site. And, ok, they may get other legal hassles and have to move, and I'll have to find their new IP at some point, but still... its asinine to think blocking DNS alone is going to stop someone who really wants to get there.
1. Re:What real good is blocking DNS's? by tomhudson · 2011-10-08 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  But it serves 2 purposes - it placates those who wanted the judge to do something, and it's both simple to implement and simple to get around - so it's a win-win. The judge gets this case off his docket, the entity bringing the suit can say "we won", etc.
2. Re:What real good is blocking DNS's? by causality · 2011-10-08 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  But it serves 2 purposes - it placates those who wanted the judge to do something, and it's both simple to implement and simple to get around - so it's a win-win. The judge gets this case off his docket, the entity bringing the suit can say "we won", etc.
  They deserved something other than humiliation? (Winning a case based on laws you bought doesn't count as not-humiliating...)
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
3. Re:What real good is blocking DNS's? by tomhudson · 2011-10-08 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone using TPB should be able to figure out how to get around the block, or know someone who can show them how, so it's really a non-issue.
Three cheers for thepiratebay... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 12:51 · Score: 0

Gotta love those guys. Thumbing their nose at all of the morons of the world, while giving so many what they want... Wish I could do more than just buy their stuff to support them.
Pointless by Alunral · 2011-10-08 12:52 · Score: 1

I find that kind of funny that it was so specific as to overlook something so blatantly obvious. It just shows that these judges, and the ISPs for that matter, don't know what they are doing at all. For now, that means TPB is still around, and this court order hasn't done a single thing. What's more, people will just keep finding a way around these orders.
1. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 13:50 · Score: 0
  
  Or that the judge know exactly what it means, not like the ruling but had to rule based on existing laws.
Re:Classic problem restated by TaoPhoenix · 2011-10-08 13:00 · Score: 3, Informative

I might disagree.
In the US we're getting so many blatant Constitution-demolishing new politics/cases that they're not even trying to follow the law anymore. Yet the 1960's age of Civil Disobedience is/almost over.
So the only form of protest left is to use the Letter/Spirit of the law. Because the Spirit of the law is "Let's let a measly 10-Billion Industry completely dominate all of world politics!" So when the smart users find a loophole, it's the only way they can't be slammed with the Terrorist label.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
194.71.107.15 is the new black by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 13:17 · Score: 0

Damn. I have to type four numbers now instead of a domain name to get to my torrents. Will this persecution never end?
1. Re:194.71.107.15 is the new black by jc42 · 2011-10-08 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm ... When I try 194.71.107.15, I get a blank page, but depiraatbaai.be works just fine, and even gets me The Pirate Bay's main page in English. DNS here tells me that 194.71.107.15 is the IP address of depiraatbaai.be, so you'd think they'd work the same. Both of these were pasted directly into a browser's address widget, so it's not a problem with HTTP_REFERER or something like that. Anyone know what's going on here? Has some other court (or an ISP's management ;-) decided to look at the HTTP header and block GET commands that don't include a FQDN? That seems far to sophisticated for any court (or ISP management ;-).
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
2. Re:194.71.107.15 is the new black by nedlohs · 2011-10-08 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  Named based virtual hosting like almost every other web site in existance.
3. Re:194.71.107.15 is the new black by petermgreen · 2011-10-08 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's far more likely that the server is set up for name based virtual hosting (regardless of whether they are actually using it or not) and is set up to serve a blank page for unknown names.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
4. Re:194.71.107.15 is the new black by jc42 · 2011-10-08 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yeah, but in that case, the OP couldn't have used it, and would have no basis for the complaint:
  
  Damn. I have to type four numbers now instead of a domain name to get to my torrents.
  I mean, it's common for /. denizens to not bother reading TFA. But this person seems to be posting a complaint about needing to do something that wouldn't even work. Would a /. reader be dumb enough to complain about something without trying it to see if it's even feasible?
  ;-)
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
5. Re:194.71.107.15 is the new black by bs0d3 · 2011-10-08 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  the thing with using an ip instead of a url is that many servers host more than one website at the same ip.
6. Re:194.71.107.15 is the new black by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 16:50 · Score: 0
  
  Just make each web server listen on a different port if you need to share the IP address.
7. Re:194.71.107.15 is the new black by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 23:14 · Score: 0
  
  How are you going to tell (possibly dumb) people what port to use?
  It's much easier to use named based virtual hosting than to tell people they have to use http://194.71.107.15:81/ or even http://www.thepiratebay.org:81/. The DNS only tell you which IP-address to connect to, not which port.
www prefix no longer works in US either by 0111+1110 · 2011-10-08 13:18 · Score: 1

At least with verizon fios in the US http://www.thepiratebay.org/ no longer works for me, but http://thepiratebay.org/ works fine. I wonder if that has something to do with this issue.
I did an nslookup of thepiratebay.org and got 194.71.107.15 which doesn't work in my browser. I just get a blank page. I can't ping or traceroute to thepiratebay.org either. Could this have something to do with DDOS countermeasures?

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
1. Re:www prefix no longer works in US either by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  Both work just fine on my FiOS.
2. Re:www prefix no longer works in US either by marcosdumay · 2011-10-08 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  The ip also returns a blanck page to me. They are probably relying too much on name virtualhosts.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
3. Re:www prefix no longer works in US either by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 14:23 · Score: 0
  
  On Comcast with the same experience.
4. Re:www prefix no longer works in US either by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 14:54 · Score: 0
  
  It works for me (eMobile 4G internet), but the WWW redirects to the naked domain.
5. Re:www prefix no longer works in US either by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  Why the hell are you using the DNS server provided by your ISP? This is a perfect example of why NOT to.
Boring by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 14:33 · Score: 0

Another Slashdot article about stealing shit.
1. Re:Boring by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 23:25 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah! How dare the ISP steal the hostname www.thepiratebay.org and send false NXDOMAIN responses, when www.thepiratebay.org clearly is the property of thepiratebay.org? How rude!
Use the numbers? by MichaelSmith · 2011-10-08 14:47 · Score: 1

Presumably the IP addresses would work as well, and failing that, use a different DNS provider or a local hosts file. Seems like a bit of a waste of time for the Belgian courts.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
1. Re:Use the numbers? by dkf · 2011-10-09 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably the IP addresses would work as well, and failing that, use a different DNS provider or a local hosts file. Seems like a bit of a waste of time for the Belgian courts.
  The problem is that what the judge (or rather the plaintiff in the relevant case) really wants is to block access to the Pirate Bay website as a service, yet that's hard to actually specify. The service has many DNS names. The IP address might be shared. The service could be on multiple IP addresses (and could most certainly be migrated). Conceivably, the servers could be seized, but they might be shared (and jurisdiction would have to be established, which would be difficult). Seizing a purely virtual entity is really tricky, as backups make it trivial to resurrect.
  While TPB are damned idiots for being such blatant scofflaws, shutting them down is not a task I'd even bother with. It'd be like trying to kill a hydra in clown shoes.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
FUKKINARRRR.COM by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 14:58 · Score: 0

bt
Great, get yourself a contempt of court citation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 15:06 · Score: 0

What, do you think Judges need to put up with Bullshit excuses like that? The judge will just say you're quite obviously trying to skirt my order, and you think I'll not punish you, and then the judge slams you down for your openly contemptuous attitude.
And this whole discussion is going to be a prime example if somebody wants to hold a hearing on it.
Not that I expect the Belgian ISP to be that dumb, their lawyers will tell them exactly what they'll be in for if they dick around with the courts that badly.
Why? Because judges aren't literal genies or magic fairies.
LOL! by tkel · 2011-10-08 16:29 · Score: 0

I lol'd.
Asking for trouble by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2011-10-08 16:43 · Score: 2

Courts are not known for their sense of humour over hair splitting.
1. Re:Asking for trouble by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-09 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  No ISP is going to get in trouble for blocking only the explicitly named domains. I they blocked a domain not explicitly listed they could potentially be in breach of contract with their customers.
2. Re:Asking for trouble by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-09 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  Courts are not known for their sense of humour over hair splitting.
  Of course they don't see hair splitting as humour. Hair splitting is serious business to them. Lawyers and judges are professionals in the area of hair splitting, though they prefer to call it law.
Arf? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-08 17:20 · Score: 0

Um, that is the correct IP address for both www.thepiratebay.org and thepiratebay.org. At least it is according to his ISP, my ISP, my own DNS, Google's DNS, and a handful of others I tried. The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with DNS and everything to do with how TBP has configured their server to respond to requests to www.
telecomix by bs0d3 · 2011-10-08 17:45 · Score: 1

i made a mistype in the url for the telecomix irc, its sending people to telecomix.net when it should have been telecomix.org, the correct url should look something like this https://02.chat.mibbit.com/?server=irc.telecomix.org:6667&channel=%23telecomix&nick=slashdot
Meanwhile, OpenNIC. by Arancaytar · 2011-10-08 17:59 · Score: 1

If an ISP blocks a domain rather than an IP address, that's like the delisting a number from the phone book*, and about as anachronistic. But sshhh... don't tell the courts!
(*Historical note: In the twentieth century, phone books were paper-based directories reprinted annually by telephone companies, listing names, addresses and telephone numbers.)
1. Re:Meanwhile, OpenNIC. by maxwell+demon · 2011-10-08 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  If an ISP blocks a domain rather than an IP address, that's like the delisting a number from the phone book*, and about as anachronistic. But sshhh... don't tell the courts!
  (*Historical note: In the twentieth century, phone books were paper-based directories reprinted annually by telephone companies, listing names, addresses and telephone numbers.)
  Historical note? I got my latest phone book this year.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Won't last long... by Issarlk · 2011-10-08 21:04 · Score: 1

the judges will certainly correct the problem by asking to remove "194.71.107.15" in the DNS, and then we're screwed.
Technological illiteracy by Etz+Haim · 2011-10-09 08:50 · Score: 1

The Internet is unforgiving to the technologically illiterate, even if the latter are the holders of judicial power.
new url by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 09:14 · Score: 0

http://depiraatbaai.be/