Slashdot Mirror


Dutch Court Forces ISPs To Block the Pirate Bay

New submitter swinferno writes "After recent successes in Finland, Italy and Belgium, the Dutch Copyright protection organization BREIN has obtained a verdict that forces two major ISPs to block access to The Pirate Bay domains and gives them the right to submit future domains/IP addresses to be blocked in the future without court order."

304 comments

  1. Et tu, Netherlands? by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And from a country where a man once gave his life for freedom of speech, no less.

    They once fought the Nazi's, but now they drop to their knees before the entertainment industry.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Invoking Godwin's Law in the first post is worse than anything that Hitler ever did.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      I would use Genghis Khan, but it turns out that the Dutch never fought him.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can go to jail for that in some countries now.

    4. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are just doing what the United States is telling them to do.

      Honestly, Why are the Citizens of the Netherlands allowing the USA To dictate their own laws? Why are you people not protesting in the streets over this stuff?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      Which Hitler?

    6. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uh, what? Theo van Gogh didn't give up his life for the benefit of free speech, it was brutally taken from him for practicing it...

      Our 'fight' against the Nazi's didn't last longer than a couple of days and we quickly surrendered.

    7. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am pretty sure he refers to this guy

    8. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by DesScorp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And from a country where a man once gave his life for freedom of speech, no less.

      They once fought the Nazi's, but now they drop to their knees before the entertainment industry.

      What a farce. The Pirate Bay isn't fighting for freedom of speech, nor are the Dutch suppressing it. Copyright violation isn't free speech, no matter how you want to dress it up as such.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    9. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Invoking Godwin's Law in the first post is worse than anything that Hitler ever did.

      But it is a fact that they fought the Nazi's, not an "argument".

      Godwin's Law applies to Nazi analogies used by people who argue about something unrelated like the weather.

      "I think we will have a rainshower."

      See?

    10. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by DesScorp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They are just doing what the United States is telling them to do.

      Honestly, Why are the Citizens of the Netherlands allowing the USA To dictate their own laws? Why are you people not protesting in the streets over this stuff?

      You honestly think there would be no copyright laws abroad without American pressure? Really?

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    11. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some people that care, but most of them don't - most people think that the Dutch Pirate Party for instance only harbors a bunch of nerds and anti-governmental lefties who will never see their goals realized. Maybe (hopefully) now there'll be more people who realize that they actually should protest.

    12. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Informative

      BREIN isn't a US organization. Note how it is representing Dutch movie and recording studios? Nor is there any sign they need the US to encourage them. Believe it or not, the US is not the only source of corporate greed or stupidity in the world, despite what many Slashdot commentators seem to think.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    13. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 1

      Perception of martyrdom. He knew he was being targeted, but didn't go into hiding. He talked a subject that many would have shied away from out of fear.

      The question is that if he stood up intentionally, or just thought these threats were more buffs. Either way, he took on the subject and died. At this point his intent doesn't matter. He's now a symbol in the way Che is.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    14. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very poor attempt at trolling, it's the mod I feel sorry for though.

    15. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by na1led · · Score: 1

      I guess Hitler Won in the end. His ideology of Totalitarian is coming to fruition!

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    16. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      watering down an important first post containing important concepts and principles with some fad shit like 'godwin's law' is even worse.

      next time, please dont be so stupid.

    17. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Fri13 · · Score: 0

      Can you explain to me, very clearly, what common does freedom of speech and web service what only exist to allow people to share copyrighted material illegaly does have?

      Because people should have freedom to speech, they should be free to share others work without permission?

      Open Source is very much about copyright what gives its the strong protection. GPL wouldn't exist without strong copyright.
      Copyright is one of the corner stones in human society where every person has rights to work what they do and no one can not take it away from them.
      Freedom of speech is same kind. But abusing that freedom, is not allowed. That means you can not brake the law only because you have freedom of speech.

      So explain to me and many others. Why it is a freedom of speech that people should be allowed to download (and upload) a copyrighted material without copyright owners right?

      (My personal opinion is that copyright lenght has gone too far, 10-15 years would be more than enough, after the work goes public).

    18. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by ichthus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't be a Godwin Nazi.

      --
      sig: sauer
    19. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a slippery slope. If given power, some asshat will always abuse it. The ability to submit domains and IP addresses without judicial oversight could lead to a lot of speech being censored.

    20. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What a farce. The Pirate Bay isn't fighting for freedom of speech, nor are the Dutch suppressing it. Copyright violation isn't free speech, no matter how you want to dress it up as such.

      Since when has been TPB violating copyrights?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    21. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Never. No more so than google has been violating copyrights by indexing.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    22. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Synerg1y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you honestly think that THIS particular case is free of USA influence? Where is the RIAA and MPAA located? Who is fueling the copyright war? I do agree though, people need to protest, hopefully one day the dutch can hire non-retarded politicians, but I'm preaching from the choir here.

    23. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The verdict is based on the "fact" that TPB is violating copyrights. This case was only about if a copyright violating site should be blocked and the answer seems to be "yes".

      The fight over if TPB is really violating anything is a different fight.

    24. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      The Pirate Bay does not violate the copyrights of anyone. Some of their users are posting torrents on it that point to files that violate copyright.

    25. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by kdemetter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Blocking The Pirate Bay, is also suppressing freedom of speech. There's a blog on it, for example.
      Someone could also use it too hosts it's own creations, and ask feedback on it trough the comments.
      And it could be used to host content criticizing a regime, controversial opinions , etc...

      The Pirate Bay does advocate free speech, though obviously they see it broader ( freedom of information ).

      So any country blocking TPB , is fighting piracy ( though very unsuccessfully ) , and is suppressing freedom of speech at the same time.
      Any file sharer will find a way to work around it, so this does nothing to stop piracy. Torrents and magnet links remain accessible.

      However, actual free speech, like the opinions of users, blog entries, are now inaccessible to the user just wants to visit the site .
      So it does a lot more harm to free speech, then that it does anything against piracy.

    26. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Copyright violation isn't free speech

      Please give a single example of a copyright violation by "The Pirate Bay". Oh wait, you can't. You want to get into the whole argument of "facilitating copyright violation" then you might as well sue network, computer and storage equipment manufacturers, not to mention anyone who ever built and sold a set of speakers.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    27. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You honestly think there would be no copyright laws abroad without American pressure? Really?

      You honestly think the US is the only place in the world where books, movies and music are made? Really?

    28. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Why are you people not protesting in the streets over this stuff?

      Probably for the same reason that no one is "protesting in the streets" in the US over it. The vast majority simply do not know about this, and many of the ones who know simply don't understand the ramifications.

    29. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Point of order. Van Gogh didn't give his life. It was taken from him.

    30. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One man's pirate is another man's freedom fighter

    31. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by tsa · · Score: 2

      He didn't give his life, he was murdered. And we already had freedom of speech before he was killed. Don't make more out of it than it was.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    32. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by tsa · · Score: 1

      BREIN is just as bad as the RIAA/MPAA just on their won. They don't need the US to guide them. Which doesn't mean the Netherlands isn't a lap dog of the US. BUt in this case, I don't think the US had much to do with it.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    33. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Godwin's Law becomes null when fascism is reborn.

      And fascism is a mode of government which requires a fusion of corporate business and government, to the point which it becomes impossible to separate the motivations of the two.

    34. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, the US is not the only source of corporate greed or stupidity in the world....

      True... but they do export an awful lot of it.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    35. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by tsa · · Score: 1

      Files don't violate anything. People violate things.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    36. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by tsa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's why they have that blog, so they can claim that blocking their site is a violation of freedom of speech.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    37. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      If a decision is based on faulty premises, the decision is faulty. It's not a different fight, it's the same.

    38. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by rubycodez · · Score: 1, Informative

      that's pretty much what we did at the end of WW I, the unfair treatment of Germany at that time caused WW II.

    39. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      Cheers, it was just the "that Hitler" bit that threw me. Pity about the overrated mods, I thought the parent was witty enough.

    40. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Can you explain to me, very clearly, what common does freedom of speech and web service what only exist to allow people to share copyrighted material illegaly does have?

      TPB is used for whatever its users want to use it for; there's no rule saying you can only put torrents pointing to files you aren't legally allowed to distributed, so saying it "only exists to allow people to share copyrighted material illegally" is wrong.

      Also, TPB is not located in the Netherlands and they have no jurisdiction over it.

      Because people should have freedom to speech, they should be free to share others work without permission?

      No, that's why BREIN should go after the people who are distributing such files, not TPB.
      Inability to do so is not an excuse to violate the rights of others.

      Open Source is very much about copyright what gives its the strong protection. GPL wouldn't exist without strong copyright.

      1) GPL is only one of many open sources licenses.
      2) TPB isn't violating copyright.

      So explain to me and many others. Why it is a freedom of speech that people should be allowed to download (and upload) a copyrighted material without copyright owners right?

      Again, legally, they shouldn't. That's why BREIN should go after those people, not TPB.

    41. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by brainzach · · Score: 1

      Just because a website is shut down, doesn't mean you lose free speech. You can exercise your free speech on millions of other websites. No one is preventing you from getting your opinion out.

    42. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      I very much agree. So what if they have a blog. The whole point of the site is to help people gain access to copyrighted material which they most likely do not have license to use. If hosting a blog on your site means it can't be taken down for free speech rules, then they might as well be able to host the actual pirated files themselves. Sorry, can't take the site down, we have a blog. The primary function site of the site is aiding copyright infringement. If the site was an advertised meet-up place for people wanting to hire hitmen, or for people wanting to trade illegal porn, then everyone here would probably think it a good thing to take the site down.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    43. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      who really owns those Dutch movie and recording studios?

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    44. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      If I ask you where I can get a copy of a movie, and you give me the name of a copyright pirate, have you committed copyright piracy?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    45. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Moryath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The start of said world war was when a certain political party came to power on a racist platform, spouting about how "the foreigners" had destroyed a certain country, and proceeded to eliminate any newspaper or news outlet that wasn't a part of their propaganda machine.

      Then they came up with even worse things to do. But it started with propaganda and censorship.

    46. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that, at least on the surface, this particular case has nothing to do with the USA. This is a Dutch organisation going to court and a judge making an (arguably incorrect) verdict based on a law that is already somewhat lenient towards filesharers (there's nothing in the Dutch law that can stop someone from downloading copyrighted material, though uploading is a different case). In any case, we, the citizens, have no direct influence on the judge or this organisation. So all we can do is elect politicians that can maybe do something about the laws we have regarding internet cencorship, but most of us are more concerned with immigration (read: Islam) and getting headscarfs taxed, it seems.

      That said, currently the USA is trying to influence European copyright legislation through ACTA, which I would imagine most of us are against. Sadly, the one coalition party (PVV) that claimed it wouldn't budge on secret negioations on matters of law, did budge, and now we're all OK with it, apparently.

    47. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the RIAA and MPAA are not america they are corp entities. if you guys dont want them influincing your laws like they do ours you are welcome to band them from your country. whats that? you cant? they brike your politicians just like our? well then shut up.

    48. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Everyone agrees that hiring a hitman is illegal. Or that the guy driving the get-away car for a bank robbery is also doing something illegal. So we at least have some legal precedent that not actually doing an illegal act, but enabling it is an illegal act is itself a crime. If they actually made some honest effort to remove torrents pointed to copyrighted content then I might have some sympathy for them. But they don't. They know they are enabling people to break copyright laws. What if they took the original movie files, reversed them, added a header to make them look like giant BMPs with randomly colored pixles, and then served them up like that. Sorry, we only host big random image files here, it's just a coincidence that you can use that data to easily derive the latest blockbuster movie.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    49. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      Copyright violation isn't free speech

      Please give a single example of a copyright violation by "The Pirate Bay". Oh wait, you can't. You want to get into the whole argument of "facilitating copyright violation" then you might as well sue network, computer and storage equipment manufacturers, not to mention anyone who ever built and sold a set of speakers.

      The very act of providing copyrighted material for download without permission from the copyright holders is prima facie copyright violation in almost all legal systems that have copyright systems in place. This argument that you and some others are making is stupid on its face, and frankly dishonest as well, the equivalent of a looter saying "Oh yeah? Prove that this stuff isn't mine".

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    50. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by russotto · · Score: 1

      Copyright violation isn't free speech, no matter how you want to dress it up as such.

      Of course it is. Copyright violation is merely repeating what someone else had to say.

    51. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      I don't know if that's especially applicable in this case.

      I suspect that this is just another Coalition of the Willing... in this case, of the various national-level non-governmental organizations willing to curtail fundamental human rights and due process in order to protect business models predicated on artificial scarcity of imaginary property.

      Media pigopoly is an supra-national problem.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    52. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hold it, Citizen. Please step over into this Free Speech Zone. Thanks.

      The razor wire and locked gate are for your own protection.

      Now feel free to speak your mind.

      Thanks for your cooperation.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    53. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      The comparison is implied rather than explicit.

      The Dutch who fought the Nazis in WW2 are now bending over for the media Nazis of the 21st century.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    54. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why don't you take a look at what's at 1025 F ST N.W., 10th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20004? It's even in the capital for short walking distance to transport the bribe. They don't give a fuck about Europe because they just pass w/e laws we pass, so winning the law in the states = it gets passed in europe, cause europeans don't have spines, contrary to biology.

    55. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh please, our spines are fine you'll find. But even though our politicians stand nice and straight, they are no less crooked than their American counter parts.

    56. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone agrees that hiring a hitman is illegal.

      This is buying a 'service'.

      Or that the guy driving the get-away car for a bank robbery is also doing something illegal.

      Undoubtedly he gets his cut of the loot, unless being coerced.

      The case where they might get piratebay is that they do get money from advertisement, since they are likely to get money for enabling the violation of copyright.

      In Finland we pay a tax to Teosto for storage medium and now they want a bigger slice of the cake by stopping people from copying the media.

    57. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by lgw · · Score: 4, Funny

      Please give a single example of a copyright violation by "The Pirate Bay". Oh wait, you can't. You want to get into the whole argument of "facilitating copyright violation" then you might as well sue network, computer and storage equipment manufacturers, not to mention anyone who ever built and sold a set of speakers.

      Ahh, so you've read the RIAA's roadmap for 2012 then?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    58. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

      The Dutch who fought the Nazis in WW2 are now bending over for the media Nazis of the 21st century.

      ...but isn't that a fact, too?

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    59. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by lgw · · Score: 1

      People keep voting to give the government more power, and keep being surprised when stuff like this happens - over and over. Government will always be corrupt; all that can be done is to stop giving it power.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    60. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by FreeUser · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The very act of providing copyrighted material for download without permission from the copyright holders is prima facie copyright violation in almost all legal systems that have copyright systems in place.

      The pirate bay has done none of those things.

      This argument that you and some others are making is stupid on its face, and frankly dishonest as well, the equivalent of a looter saying "Oh yeah? Prove that this stuff isn't mine".

      Actually, your comment is what is stupid (or at least ignorant, as in, completely uninformed). The pirate bay posts links to 3rd party sites that may or may not contain downloadable content that is being made available in violation of copyright.

      If you are going to target the pirate bay, you must also target Bing, Google, and every other search engine out there. It's a dangerous precedent, one that threatens the entire Internet as we know it.

      And I say that as one who (1) does not use the pirate bay (but has looked at the site to see what the fuss is about), (2) creates copyrighted material myself, and (3) values both the Internet and freedom of expression it facilitates over short-term tactical moves trying to reduce copyright violations. Even if they were effective the price in terms of our freedoms wouldn't be worth it. The fact that they are so ineffective as to be laughable, shows either the stupidity of those promoting such methods or, more likely, as these people are generally not stupid, the underlying agenda they are pursuing that has nothing to do with copyright violations and everything to do with suppressing speach within western democracies while maintaining plausible deniability with the wider, uninformed public. ACTA and SOPA are the logical next steps in this progression, at which point it won't be irresponsible sites like the pirate bay that are at risk, but any site, anywhere, where anyone says anything the content cartels don't like, including probably just about any criticism of copyright law, present or future (or for that matter, anything any ruling government or influencial corporate cartel doesn't like).

      It's nearly game over dude. Live in denial at your own risk.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    61. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the GP's point is that TPB is just pointing you to where the alleged illegal material can be downloaded. His point is that TPB themselves are not hosting any of the material, no more than Google does when links to illegal content turns up in their searches.

      To clarify your analogy, it would be like someone standing on a street corner telling people WHERE they might be able to do some looting.

    62. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by shaitand · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If lower statutes trump free speech then it would have been illegal for Dr. Martin Luther King to discuss the organized civil disobedience in the civil rights movement. His speech clearly helped facilitate and encourage this activity in the same way the pirate bay encourages and facilitates civil disobedience in the form of piracy.

      I think you'll likely find the only difference between the two is that you agree with Dr. King's agenda and do not agree with that of the pirate bay and the pirate party. Free speech is guaranteed constitutionally in the highest law of the land because its most important uses will often encourage the violation of lesser laws thought to be unjust or the result of government corruption.

      At least this is the case here in the US even if free speech and the constitution hasn't always been honored here in practice. I don't know about the Netherlands. And yes, it is not a coincidence that the dutch branch of the RIAA/MPAA is taking the same action as the finish and other EU branches. These groups are affiliated and the ringleader is the US branch.

    63. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      A website is a form of speech/expression. Hitting the mute button today's speech is censoring speech and that is what you are doing when you take down a website. It doesn't make it okay simply because there are other expressions you haven't censored yet.

    64. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I send you one text message, it's no problem

      If I send you a 1000 per day, it might be stalking.

      Context matters.

    65. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The analogy is flawed in that both the hitman and the get-away car driver gets prosecuted for that specific event he was part of. You can not get prosecuted for being in general hiring hitmans, or in general being a get-away car driver for bank robberies. If you cant find a specific person being murdered, or a specific bank being robbed, you can not prosecute someone for it. TBP got prosecuted for being in general helpful to people who want to break copyright laws.

    66. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Godwin's law only holds that a odds of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler grow closer to 1.

      It does not matter if the comparison is factual or not.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    67. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "The very act of providing copyrighted material for download without permission from the copyright holders is prima facie copyright violation"

      Okay. Now name a single instance of the pirate bay doing so. TPB provides links to material that other people provide (independently of the TPB) and others use those links. TPB does so without regard to the copyright status of the material so linked. These links are posted by users and not TPB so the pirate bay is giving no preference to works shared without permission. The simple fact is that the pirate bay is no more or less than a search engine that is being targeted because those who run the site are openly in favor of civil disobedience in the form of piracy even though said owners take no ACTION to encourage the same beyond expressing that opinion.

      This is no different than if Google operated under EXACTLY the same principles it does today, acting as a common carrier without regard to content, but the founders published a statement announcing their support of NAMBLA. Does being a common carrier negate your right to free speech and support of civil disobedience? Doing having an opinion in favor of civil disobedience suddenly require that disobedience if you are a common carrier?

      Not in a free society.

    68. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget about Microsoft files.

    69. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      The **AA violate things.

      There, thats fixed it for you.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    70. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, Godwins law is as valid as it ever was. All Godwins law states is that as the length of a thread increases, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler or Nazis approaches one. The rebirth of fascism has only shifted that curve to the left a bit.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    71. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      What a farce. The Pirate Bay isn't fighting for freedom of speech, nor are the Dutch suppressing it. Copyright violation isn't free speech, no matter how you want to dress it up as such.

      Perhaps.

      But allowing a private organization to play judge, jury and executionor most certainly is.

      Atleast in China the power is with the government, not a media-industry funded organization.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    72. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You want to get into the whole argument of "facilitating copyright violation" then you might as well sue network, computer and storage equipment manufacturers, not to mention anyone who ever built and sold a set of speakers.

      Don't worry, that's coming.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    73. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2

      I think you are referring to Corporatism. Fascism does not require a fusion of corporations and government. Fascism simply puts country or race ahead of the individual. Certainly corporations are often protected under a fascist government, but it isn't always required to have fascism.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    74. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      See: YouTube takedown shitfest, esp. illegitimate takedown of MegaUpload (or whatever it's called) promotional music video.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    75. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm from the Netherlands, and a volunteer of BitsofFreedom.

      We've been quite sucesfull in being a counterweight to the lobby organisations in parlement (downloading is still legal in the Netherlands, and we've just passed Network Neutrality), but this is quite a setback.

      The battle rages on..

    76. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or that the guy driving the get-away car for a bank robbery is also doing something illegal. So we at least have some legal precedent that not actually doing an illegal act, but enabling it is an illegal act is itself a crime.

      This is a great analogy. What if the guy driving the get-away car is a taxi? What if he just picks people up and takes people places without asking too many questions? Is he guilty too? Should we force taxi drivers to obtain affadavits from their passengers declaring that their transportation is for legal purposes? Should we force search engines to verify the legality of the content they index? Is there a meaningful difference between the two?

      Search engines are like taxis. They'll take you anywhere you ask them to. If they take you somewhere illegal, that's your fault not the taxi and not the search engine.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    77. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's even in the capital for short walking distance to transport the bribe.

      In their defense, do you realize how heavy a suitcase full of cash really is?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    78. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      they are no less crooked than their American counter parts

      That's the problem.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    79. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Hiring a hitman isn't a form of speech and/or expression. The same is true of driving a get-away car. Publishing a website is both speech and expression. Civil disobedience as a form of protest is also protected by the first amendment. There is certainly an argument that piracy is nothing more than a protest, by those who feel that copyright laws are unjust and the result of government corruption, that takes the form of civil disobedience.

      Someone who is facilitating that protest by vocalizing their support and refusing to actively block those engaging in said protest is engaging in protest, speech, and expression in its most fundamental and protected form. TPB doesn't go out and find copyrighted materials, they simply take no effort to censor links to the same being served on their common carrier. It really shouldn't matter that the founders have voiced their pro-piracy opinion they haven't taken any action that actually causes someone to engage in piracy who is not already inclined to do so.

    80. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by glodime · · Score: 1

      The very act of providing copyrighted material for download without permission from the copyright holders is prima facie copyright violation

      But that isn't what the Pirate Bay does. The irrelevant fact you describe makes your post "stupid on its face".

      BTW, the person accused of looting is not a looter if the stuff is indeed owned by the accused.

    81. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      The problem is really "Free Trade agreements" It seems every country wants one with the US, and one of the standard clauses is to tighten up on copyright, media consumption laws.

      Why?

      Mostly, as you said because the media conglomerates have been lobbying for the US to "Protect the nations intellectual property so that the US will make more money" and the local versions of the RIAA in these other countries (that are made up of the same businesses) have been pushing their politicians to accept these agreements so that their companies will make more money and not lose it to them evil pirates.

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    82. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by fritsd · · Score: 3, Informative

      But it is a fact that they fought the Nazi's, not an "argument".

      no... sorry, but it is disingenuous (sp?) to put it like that..
      I read a quote somewhere (can't be bothered to look it up but it could well have been from Lou de Jong) that went something like this:
      "5% happily collaborated with the Nazis, 5% joined the resistance and fought the Nazis, and the other 90% stayed at home and kept their curtains closed."

      For a seriously good (but fictional) film about the shades of grey you get in war-time and after, I suggest watching "The Assault"/"De Aanslag" by Fons Rademakers, based on the excellent book by Harry Mulisch.

      Warning: film may shatter easy black-vs-white preconceptions about good and evil.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    83. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, how is a private organization playing judge, jury, and executioner? The private organization took the issue to court as a plaintiff, and an actual judge made the decision. So the judge is playing judge.

    84. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, saying "They once fought the Nazi's" is far worse, especially considering that Elrous0 is educated and knows better!

    85. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by glodime · · Score: 1

      Everyone agrees that hiring a hitman is illegal. Or that the guy driving the get-away car for a bank robbery is also doing something illegal.

      Because it is encoded into law as such.

      Copyright violation itself, though illegal, is not seen as something that should be illegal in its current form by a significant number of people (visit youtube or ask Justin Bieber on a radio interview for evidence). So it is reasonable to assume that even more people would oppose creating new law that makes enabling copyright also illegal.

    86. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Can you explain to me, very clearly, what common does freedom of speech and web service what only exist to allow people to share copyrighted material illegaly does have?"

      Copyright only applies to creative works of speech and expression so actually the existence of copyright is a violation of freedom of speech and expression. A website is also a form of published speech and expression. Piracy is a peaceful protest of copyright either in whole or in part and the government corruption associated with it. The pirate bay participates by providing a meeting ground for this peaceful protest, nothing more.

      Further the pirate bay facilitates publishing regardless of copyright. For instance, I wrote a book (and retain copyright on said book) which I distribute in part via a torrent listed on the pirate bay. My you censor the pirate bay, you are also censoring MY free speech in the form of that book.

      "GPL wouldn't exist without strong copyright."

      The GPL is only NEEDED because of copyright.

    87. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't that how Chinese government set up the 'free speech' zone for the Olympics?

    88. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by pla · · Score: 1

      This argument that you and some others are making is stupid on its face, and frankly dishonest as well, the equivalent of a looter saying "Oh yeah? Prove that this stuff isn't mine".

      No. TPB doesn't host a damned thing (at least, none of the content of interest that we agree counts as "infringing"). They provide a place for 3rd parties to meet, nothing more and nothing less.

      This doesn't amount to a "Prove I don't own it this stuff!" argument, but rather, a "What stuff?" one.


      More importantly, TPB performs a service substantially similar to Google or Bing, just tailored to finding P2P feeds rather than websites. If the courts spank TPB over this, it comes scarily close for allowing the same logic to apply to Google.

    89. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by cpghost · · Score: 2

      The US government created the climate that allowed BREIN and similar local copyright enforcement groups to prosper. Just look at the leaked cables from the US Dept. of State to find plenty of evidence.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    90. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      then everyone here would probably think it a good thing to take the site down.

      Not really.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    91. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

      I would hate to be a manufacturer of (get-away) cars.

    92. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Everyone agrees that hiring a hitman is illegal.

      Oh? Do they now? Can you prove that?

      Because I don't.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    93. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Assuming you meant "should be illegal."

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    94. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Godwin's law only holds that a odds of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler grow closer to 1.
      >It does not matter if the comparison is factual or not.

      Then Godwin is a Nazi who made up a law to silence people who fight Nazis.

    95. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by silentbrad · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can indeed be prosecuted for hiring a hitman

    96. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by fa2k · · Score: 1

      Copyright violation isn't free speech, no matter how you want to dress it up as such.

      Copyright is absolutely a restriction of free speech! Copyright restricts what you are able to say and write, I can't see how anyone could argue with that.

      Please show me a definition of "free speech", one without any cultural bias, that still allows copyright enforcement (I'm sure North Korea could - and probably do - claim that they have free speech too, if they got to exclude things that are "beneficial for society" to restrict). You are right in practice, though, there is enough free speech in most countries to have an informed discourse, and maybe absolute free speech is not a good thing.

    97. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your jurisdiction, maybe, but some of them have habitual criminal statutes that basically let them lock you up because you've done stuff before and might do it again.

    98. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      In their defense, do you realize how heavy a suitcase full of cash really is?

      Well, one 500 euro bill is 1.1g so 2.2kg / million euro. The MAFIAA has it much harder though, with $100 bills it's about 10kg / million dollars but then nobody's heard of "walking distance" either.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    99. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      The very act of providing copyrighted material for download

      You completely fail to understand how torrents work. No copyrighted material is available for downloading at The Pirate Bay. None.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    100. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Hatta · · Score: 2

      No, that's nationalism. Fascism as the merger of state and corporate power comes directly from the mouth of Benito Mussolini.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    101. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So all those people that "followed orders" are not responsible?

    102. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      As far as facilitating copyright violation, Viacom, the media giant, needs to sue itself. Go visit c|net's download section, and enter terms like "ripper", "torrent", and "eMule". You will find lots of software available. c|net is owned by CBS, which in turn is owned by Viacom. If they are against file sharing, then why are they distributing the software to do it?

      The answer is they want to control the channels for media distribution. If they are the only source, people will have to come to them to get it. Piracy is a ruse to get laws passed so they can shut down *any* competition, even the legitimate independants. The alternate answer is they are too stupid to realize that one of their divisions distributes file sharing software, but 10 years after Napster you would think someone in management would have noticed by now.

    103. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the Americans. Why do you ask?

    104. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They once fought the Nazi's, but now they drop to their knees before the entertainment industry.

      What's the difference?

    105. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?
      So i can argue that someone who while entering a bank and holds the door for a bank robber is also hold accountable for "facilitating" a robbery.
      Another precedent of "enabling an illegal act"?
      I can think of the phone company who enabled the guys to place calls and coordinate a robbery.

    106. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Nikker · · Score: 1

      So they shutdown 'your' web site because you say X and you are under the belief if you say X at *another* web site then that one will stay up? Please explain.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    107. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Copying is free speech. So all attempts to stop copying are also attempts to stop free speech.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    108. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by EdIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      His argument is far from stupid on its face and is completely accurate.

      The TPB is well known for having founders that have philosophical disagreements with copyright, to say the least. However, they provide no copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holders.

      In fact, what they provide is a torrent tracking service. So technically, the copyright on the torrent belongs to the person who uploaded the torrent file. Permission to host the torrent file was given by the user explicitly.

      The file itself is not violating any copyrights. It can contain file hashes of material that is protected by copyrights from entirely different entities. That is also not violating copyright either. You cannot argue that a hash is a derivative work.

      Once the torrent file is up on the site anybody that knows the "signature" of the torrent file can ask TPB, through the tracker service, "Do you know any 3rd parties that claim to have parts of this file available?".

      Aside from the fact that the founders have personally advocated piracy, to my knowledge, they are not actually engaged in piracy. At most it could be argued that they help facilitate it, but that argument equally applies to any other search engine out there including Google.

      That's the real problem here. TPB is an easy target because of its name and philosophies, but the legal arguments are incorrect and this decision is incorrect. It does hamper free speech, in so far as it holds websites legally liable for content posted by 3rd parties. Not a good precedence regardless of how you feel about the TPB.

      Also add in the fact that the judgement allows the BREIN to basically have complete control over all domains and IP addresses being blocked in that country and you have a serious problem that far outweighs whatever damage was being done to the copyright holders by the 3rd parties involved in the TPB.

      It's like having a cockroach problem in a neighborhood and then nuking it from orbit. To cut off your nose to spite your face. Pick any saying you want.

      Your understanding of what is actually happening here is lacking to say the least and is colored by your feelings about piracy in general, and the character of the TPB.

      While I do support sane copyright laws and policies, I also realize the larger picture of what is at stake. That specifically being freedom, privacy, and anonymity.

      Is it worth destroying all of our freedoms over some copyrights? I hardly think so. The Public Domain is the most important thing on the planet, and copyright laws can help foster the creation of works and ideas being added to it, but ultimately a free society is more important than copyright law, or copyrights themselves.

      When it becomes clear that we have obtained technology that makes it effortless to create copies of ideas and expressions we really really need to figure out a better way to compensate authors, artists, inventors, etc. instead of crippling societies with draconian laws that have much darker implications and temptations for abuse than you might imagine.

      I understand your feeling and what you are trying to say, but you should try to listen to what everybody else here is saying to you too.

    109. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Xemu · · Score: 1

      You completely fail to understand how torrents work. No copyrighted material is available for downloading at The Pirate Bay. None.

      You completely fail to understand how the law works. Copyright material is available for downloading at The Pirate Bay. Plenty.

      Reference Case number B 4041-09 [2010-11-26] Svea hovrätt (Court of Appeals)

      --
      Tell your friends about xenu.net
    110. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      You've obviously never seen what a briefcase with a million dollars in hundreds looks like. It probably looks like the briefcase normal people carry their laptop in (well, the same size at least).

      In singles it is a giant rotating cube of cash while in 20's it would fit in a big backpack.

      --
      Bottles.
    111. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This ruling isn't really unexpected in my opinion. The ruling is due to how bittorrent works, downloaders also upload in most cases (yes there are clients that prohit uploading, and yes there are users that actually disable uploads, but most don't). Uploading has been illegal for a long long time. If TPB would use an other protocol the ruling could have been different:
      "Due to the nature of the so-called BitTorrent protocol that is used, the court assumes that not only those subscribers who have downloaded files, but also uploaded and thus have infringed copyright. The infringement by the subscribers to justify the opinion of the court in this case the claimed injunction to block The Pirate Bay by Ziggo and XS4ALL."

      But thus far rulings againt nntp indexers haven't been that positive for downloaders.

    112. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorporation and Corporatism are different things. Religions like Judaism are an example of Corporatism.

    113. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blocking transmission of certain kinds of information is censorship, and in the case of "copyright violation" it should be free speech. It should be free speech except many people with power and influence believe money and profit are more important than commoners' ability to "say" or "relay" anything they want.

      There are a series of terrible moves towards this end, to try to stop the potential loss of profit by restricting the use of unlicensed ideas, to try to ensure works will never enter the public domain, to destroy peoples' rights around the world.

      Meanwhile, legions of people are dead set on ruining the Internet because they fear their profits are lower because of the nature of the Internet in its current form, because people have "too much freedom" to spread works and ideas that they believe others should have no right to learn or use without paying whatever cost one protecting themselves with heinous IP laws sets.

      The Internet, data transmission and reception, is far more empowering and transformative to our world, it should not take a backseat to profit. People arguing for censorship of non private data are harmful to this planet; they would move on to more beneficial pursuits if they had more non-sociopathic concerns.

    114. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by brainzach · · Score: 1

      They are not closing down the website because of the views expressed on it. They are being shut down for infringing on copyright according to the law.

      The legal defense Pirate Bay has for itself is that it is user generated content, but this free speech business is complete BS. If you want to speak out against the government or society, there are millions of places around the Internet which have no risk of being taken down.

    115. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Fascism IS Corporatism! It's only you brainwashed Americans who have a mental blockade in this aspect.
      Look up Mussolini's quote yourself.

      Fascism was never about races. Racism / Nationalism is about races / nations. Fascism is the current form of government in the USA.

    116. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by brainzach · · Score: 0

      More like you can't express your ideas in one store because the government closed it because it sold counterfeit goods.

    117. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      No, but the free exchange of information, is.

      Protecting copyrights this way is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Free speech is well worth tolerating massive copyright infringement.

      ie. if they can block this, they can block your website with your political views with a spurious copyright claim.

      It's not hard to understand, really.

    118. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      This is akin to forcing forum operators to police the content of their forum.

      What madness.  It's not even possible, even if it's a good idea.

    119. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by brainzach · · Score: 2

      Being denied a job because of the color of your skin can not be compared to the right to download the latest Twilight Movie for free.

    120. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they start removing infringing content people will move to another service.
      I don't want to look for yet another website to find movies.
      These companies should stop complaining about piracy and just stop making movies if their so pissed off.
      Then we'll see how long it takes for them to be replaced by someone who can figure out how to make money.

    121. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need sympathy from idiots that think copyright laws are a good thing, what they need is to have that idiocy reduced.

    122. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From Merriam-Webster:
      Definition of FASCISM
      1
      often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
      2
      : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

    123. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

      No, that's nationalism. Fascism as the merger of state and corporate power comes directly from the mouth of Benito Mussolini.

      It's a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. Fascism also implies a lack of democracy, and are almost by definition always one-party states. You could imagine a democratic and transparent government where corporations were run by government. Many socialists envision such a state. The difference from fascism is that fascists usually reject democracy, though they may not always be open about it.

    124. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by FridayBob · · Score: 2

      They are just doing what the United States is telling them to do.

      That seems fairly obvious. For instance, I live in Europe and this story didn't surprise me at all.

      Honestly, Why are the Citizens of the Netherlands allowing the USA to dictate their own laws? Why are you people not protesting in the streets over this stuff?

      Because it's so mundane. Many (if not most) of the things that happen in the States eventually seem to happen in other developed, westernized countries. The big corporations know that and use it to get things done. Whenever they want to get the law changed in their favor -- *everywhere* -- they start by drafting something up themselves and taking it to Washington D.C. -- the world's capitol of free-market capitalism where it is now perfectly legal to bribe politicians. All that's necessary is to bribe enough of them and your proposal will become law no matter how unworkable and unpopular it may be. After that it's easy to get any US administration, Republican or Democrat, to pressure foreign countries into passing similar laws, although, as we've seen in Spain, sometimes it's even possible to get them to do that in advance!

      There are some other things too. First, this whole issue is about copyright law -- something that, sadly, almost no one except Slashdotters and other geeks and nerds seem to be capable of getting worked up about. Second, even in Europe, ever since WWII the Netherlands has had a history of being particularly spineless when it comes to dealing with political and economic pressure from its most valuable trading partner, i.e. Uncle Sam. So, what do you expect?

      Besides, I don't see any of you Americans out protesting on the streets against having a bunch of corrupt politicians ram SOPA and PIPA down your throats either.

    125. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I know nothing about the Pirate Bay, have never used it.

      From Wikipedia:

      Initially established in November 2003 by the Swedish anti-copyright organization Piratbyrån (The Piracy Bureau)

      I suppose you're referring to the idea that the people who run TPB don't upload files themselves, they merely facilitate it for other people? (This is pure conjecture on my part, too, having never used it and knowing nothing about them.)

    126. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      I think it's pretty clear that in the taxi driver example there's a difference between a willing and an unwilling actor. A taxi driver who gets threatened with a weapon unless he drives...probably not going to get into too much trouble.

      If I make a search on my work computer and it takes me to a site that is prohibited by work policy, then I close it. If security asks me about it, I say it was an accident and they're okay with that. If they shoot back at me with "an accident happens once, but you visited that site another 37 times in the past week", well, that looks a bit more purposeful, doesn't it?

    127. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so - why did this ever stop if that argument is sucessful?

      the versailles treaty crippled germany as 'punishment' for bizmark/hapsburg imperialism,
      which led to a bad economic situation, and the 'rebellion' against this situation in the form of polarization between naziism/communism
      with naziism eventually gaining the upperhand by playing the weak republic

      many germans were nazi in so much as they would help to keep the communists out, not that that makes it ok

      read yer history

    128. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by cmdrtorta · · Score: 1

      Late to the post... I genuinely want to know why you think the United States is behind this Dutch decision?

    129. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by cmdrtorta · · Score: 1

      "Copyright violation isn't free speech, no matter how you want to dress it up as such." That is a good point.

    130. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by cmdrtorta · · Score: 1

      Please give a single example of a copyright violation by "The Pirate Bay". Oh wait, you can't. You want to get into the whole argument of "facilitating copyright violation" then you might as well sue network, computer and storage equipment manufacturers, not to mention anyone who ever built and sold a set of speakers.

      Ahh, so you've read the RIAA's roadmap for 2012 then?

      5 points for Gryffindor.

    131. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by alreaud · · Score: 0

      Ja Whol!
      --
      "To escape the grizzly, I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you." - Unknown

    132. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by alreaud · · Score: 0

      English has x number of words. It seems trivial that as n, the number of words in all posts combined increases, the probability of word y occurring increases, also approaching unity, within certain constraints related to linguistics variables such as frequency of verbs vs. nouns, etc.

      Hence, I can agree with last paragraph in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law totally.

    133. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by ed1park · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure PirateBay is aware of it's "passengers" intent to pirate stuff. Claiming ignorance would be silly. So does that make them guilty because they are enabling?

      If there was a torrent sight called ChildRapePornBay which hosted violent child porn torrents. Should they be free to operate under your analogy?

      Granted, one is illegal copyright violation, and the other is illegal content. But both sites serve the same role.

      If you say yes, then you have integrity and are a piece of crap.
      If you say no, then you are a hypocrite and are a piece of crap. ;)

    134. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They once fought for the Nazi's

      Fixed that for you.

    135. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      TPB is an indexing site. You use it to find people who have files you want (in simple terms). In that sense, it is no more a copyright violator than Google is (by using some simple search strings I can use Google to find copyrighted MP3s that people host on their sites).

    136. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by AVee · · Score: 1

      Open Source is very much about copyright what gives its the strong protection. GPL wouldn't exist without strong copyright.

      True, because it wouldn't be needed without strong copyright...

    137. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who exactly is Godwin? No one. It's a BS law that someone made up so all of a sudden now it's wrong to compare upcoming fascism the moment we see it. The fact that it's trendy to name Godwin's law and be regarded an intellectual for it just because people get upset when their favorite dictator is being compared to right wing ideals, is upsetting, to say the least. Those who quote Godwin's law reveal themselves to be that what they hate being compared to.

    138. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Copyright is censorship. It's not a "right" but deprivation of rights -- it removes a natural and vital right the public had for as long as culture existed.

      Through the history of our species, every single piece of culture builds upon earlier ones. There's nothing entirely new, merely degrees of derivation. And even most prominent novel works build upon old culture if they want to be understood. Don't forget, even the language itself is a work of culture -- what if THAT was copyrighted/patented? Or, say, alphabet. Would you want to use "counterfeit alphabets"? If not, please contact the nearest temple of Amon, priests there will provide you with solutions for your writing needs for "reasonable and non-discriminatory" prices.

      With copyright in its present form, there'd be no Shakespeare, and if Bonos had their way, we'd have no Tolkien as well.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    139. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      Sure, but I'd be very surprised if BREIN wasn't taking their cues from the MPAA. Consider that in Australia it emerged (from the wikileaks cables) that AFACT was in fact suing iiNet on the instructions of American interests, who had asked them to emphasize the Australian film industry's interests in the lawsuit...

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    140. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by r_a_trip · · Score: 2

      Because we Dutch people know that only enforceable laws are important. Since our fine government and judiciary can't throw a third of the country in jail or bankrupt that same third with fines, blocking TPB is inconsequential. On down, 500 gazillion to go.

      They are shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic. Hanging a curtain in front of the problems they don't want to see is not going to help them.

      The media industry has squandered any goodwill they had with the population. It is a long succession of small things.

      Copy levies on empty media. (CD-R(W), DVD-R(W), BDR(W), blank office paper) Levy inning quango's who keep sitting on the money and not reimbursing artists. Bothering paying customers with anti-piracy and lengthy copyright messages. Forcing broken DRM schemes on consumers. Lobbying for unenforceable laws. Etc. etc. etc.

      As long as the Dinosaurs of Entertainment don't want to change their business model to something more 21st century, they will find people on their path who opt to forego payment on sub-par products laden with DRM and messages who don't reach their target. A pirated music album or movie doesn't come with all the annoying crap. It doesn't come with additional added value either, but for now it seems to weigh up to all the anti-features prevalent in what's for sale.

      --
      # touch universe # chmod +rwx universe # ./universe
    141. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also have: Lenin R. Marak, Stalin L. Nangmin and Frankenstein W. Momi in Meghalaya.

    142. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's nationalism. Fascism as the merger of state and corporate power comes directly from the mouth of Benito Mussolini.

      It's a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. Fascism also implies a lack of democracy, and are almost by definition always one-party states. You could imagine a democratic and transparent government where corporations were run by government. Many socialists envision such a state. The difference from fascism is that fascists usually reject democracy, though they may not always be open about it.

      So the only difference is that today we are using the word "democracy" (because I don't see ANY democratic and transparent government in the World)

    143. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Entertainment industry is oxymoron, in which "entertainment" loses its meaning. It's graveyard of fun. What comes around seems like another communism (for those who experienced it) again.

      If freedom is outlawed, only the outlaws will have freedom. I can see the next new racket for mob will be "underground ISP" and they will get loaded and I mean Prohibition-level loaded from it. Criminals don't get powerful when none is persecuting criminals, but when small fry is chased away by the law. Al Capone got big only after small moonshines were busted. So, all the lies about piracy and content bootlegging as mob business will turn out to be self-fulfilling prophecies.

    144. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfair ... is vague term. Every loser thinks he didn't get fair treatment. It probably would be unfair if Germany was depopulated, all or most its inhabitants forced to exile worldwide with ban to return to it indefinitely, and land left unused and patrolled by hunting squadrons to enforce the ban? Romans did such things in their time (Carthage, Judea), Mongols did that, Soviets too. Nazis and some of their associates had similar ideas and actions as well. Even some contemporary nations did something along that lines. You could say that failing to do such drastic actions and only annoying Germans instead made WW II unavoidable.

      The point is that treatment of Germany at the end of WW I was unreasonable and useless, aimed at satisfying vengeful feelings of victors' public, not at achieving stability and a lasting peace. It is never a good idea to induce suffering just for suffering (punishment) sake. Annihilate or reform, but don't just wound and torment.

    145. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I think it's pretty clear that in the taxi driver example there's a difference between a willing and an unwilling actor. A taxi driver who gets threatened with a weapon unless he drives...probably not going to get into too much trouble.

      Your analogy falls down under extrapolation. Why does the taxi driver need to be threatened? It's his job to take me to where I want to go in exchange for money. If I walk into a building with one backpack and emerge 5 minutes later with a different one, what business is that of his? Should he even be paying attention? Is he liable if he doesn't report anything suspicious? Should he be liable for aiding and abetting, regardless of knowledge? What if he doesn't notice, or the coke in the backpack changes for money but the bag is the same?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    146. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Kirth · · Score: 1

      Copyright violation isn't free speech, no matter how you want to dress it up as such.

      You want to tell me linking to a document which might have been uploaded illegally ISN'T free speech?
      It certainly is NOT copyright infringement.

      And if you're not understanding why this MUST BE free speech, think of a document uploaded illegally (and in violation of copyright) which documents systematic abuse of people within a company. Also as a journalist or scientist you need to be able to document, cite and link to your sources. A ban on linking would be equivalent of banning scientific research in that field (and even if that field itself is only research about copyright infringement itself).

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    147. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      how do you know it's not the Americans via a web of holding companies?

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    148. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baloroth is a liar.

      Here is the proof:

      http://pastebin.com/2NdUGY7X

    149. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by oreaq · · Score: 1

      The only thing TBP does is saying "internet user x has a copy file y and wants to share it with anyone who wants it." You can not load "the latest Twilight Movie for free" from the piratebay.

    150. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "I think you'll likely find the only difference between the two is that you agree with Dr. King's agenda and do not agree with that of the pirate bay and the pirate party."

      Since your comment suggests you missed it the first time.

      The principals are non-violent civil disobedience as form of protest, free speech and expression. Either you have a right to do these things or you do not. If you do then nobody else has the right to deny them to you simply because they don't agree with your cause.

      The civil rights movement isn't the only one to use non-violent civil disobedience as a form of protest.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

      The key underlying concept that people forget is that the right to non-violent protest, free speech, and free expression is a higher law than those that people break engaging in civil disobedience.

    151. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you've been to the United States then? Ever been stopped in the South to have your car trunk inspected for illegal's? Papers Citizen!

    152. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      If you are going to target the pirate bay, you must also target Bing, Google, and every other search engine out there.

      Google will remove links to infringing material on request. The Pirate Bay guys advertised themselves as a place to find stuff to pirate, and openly mocked the people who demanded that they remove links to infringing material.

    153. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by brainzach · · Score: 1

      I just think the pirate party is over dramatic when it comes to its agenda. I recognize that current copyright laws should be reform and that there are cases where piracy is justified, but the pirate party takes it to the extreme.

      Maybe if some software is essential to your well being and you can't afford it, you can get some sympathy, but illegally downloading things that are purely meant for entertainment is a 1st world problem,

      Especially now when there are plenty of free or inexpensive legitimate sources to receive the same type of entertainment. If you want free software, then support GPL projects where its creators give you permission to use it as you want. If you want to listen to music, there is the radio, youtube or pandora that can support your needs. Songs are just 99 cents which are not out of the price range of anyone living in a first world country. You can watch movies and TV shows for free on TV or Hulu. Netflix is cheap enough if you want more content to enjoy. For books, there are things called libraries.

      It just ain't that bad to cry that your basic civil liberties are being violated.

    154. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "probability" is the key word here. This thread just rolled a natural 20 is all. Get over it :)

    155. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the way it plays out in real life is that as soon as someone brings up Hitler or Nazis some idiot yells "Godwin!" and everyone is too embarrased to bring it up again, often to the detriment of the conversation.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    156. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      The pirate party is a political entity. The people who make up an entity like that are the ones who are passionate about the cause so of course their views are extreme. Also politics is about deals so its kind of like negotiating when buying an item from a pawn shop. You always say you want more than you want because the final result of the haggle is going to a price somewhere between your asking price and the sellers offer.

      It isn't about what you are downloading. Some of us think that having a system like copyright and trying to artificially limit the spread of ideas, knowledge in books and videos, songs that lift the spirit, and the art that cultures our youth by locking it behind a pay wall is a far greater crime than denying someone a bit of POTENTIAL money.

      In the case of media you will find that there are also a large number of people who see the media companies have purchased our governments and legislatively created an effective monopoly. Those people might be protesting the quality, the lack of fair pricing, convenience or all of the above because piracy is the only form of competition this monopoly industry has. 99 cents is extortion for a single song when reproduction of gigabytes of mp3's can be accomplished for nothing. It only seems otherwise because under the current system everyone who touched the thing has to be paid royalties and the copyright system has allowed a multi-billion dollar industry to grow around it. I see absolutely no reason that reform can't include bankrupting the existing industry.

  2. Right to submit future domains, but by DCTech · · Score: 5, Informative

    The verdict also said that if they submit non-TPB domains or ip's and violate that court decision, they will be legally liable.

    1. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      sounds like SOPA-lite

    2. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by DCTech · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except that it's only limited to one site, and the decision was only made because TPB didn't start filtering dutch visitors like earlier court verdict said. They have also been playing games setting up additional domains and ip's, because they know companies have to go via slow courts to get them banned.

    3. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Looks like this time, they have been banned for good. Unless a new entity crops up and TPB starts sharing 'data' with the new entity.

    4. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Saintwolf · · Score: 0

      Not quite, SOPA is DNS only. These guys seem to be doing it right and actually block the IP addresses through the ISP. No way around that unless you can find an alternate route/IP.

    5. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by daid303 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't make it right. Some people in cars drive around without a valid drivers license. Should traffic lights be hold responsible for letting them pass trough green? Should the phone company be responsible for someone violating a restraining order?

      This is stupid, it won't work. It's only 2 ISPs (we have many more). Also, from the dutch news:

      De internetprovider weet nog niet precies hoe ze technisch gezien de blokkade moeten aanpakken. "We hebben nog geen manier gevonden om dit te doen, maar misschien hebben we iets over het hoofd gezien."

      Translated:

      The ISP does not know how to implement this block on a technical level. "We haven't found a way to do this yet, but we might have overlooked something."

    6. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by DCTech · · Score: 1, Informative

      The judge actually specifically addressed that issue.

      While the court noted that an ISP blockade against The Pirate Bay would also prevent legitimate access to the site, it noted that the legal offerings available at The Pirate Bay are not limited to the site and are also available from other sites and means. As such, preventing a large number of copyright infringements is justified.

    7. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by daid303 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... which had nothing to do with what I said? I said "the infrastructure owners should not be held responsible for actions of people using the infrastructure".

      You reply with "but the legal stuff can be acquired by other means". Which has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. The issue is that the wrong people are being held responsible, and that this is the first step for censorship. Which ends with 1984 becoming reality.

    8. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Does the verdict say exactly that, or are there weasel words about a "good faith belief" in there?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by mapkinase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does not matter, tables are turned. Now the accuser (BREIN) can swiftly block you without order and you as an accused have to prove your innocence.

      In Netherlands that I knew (not Kafkalands that the whole Europe quickly becomes) one cannot take something from another without court order or legal mutually agreed transaction.

      First they started to give broad powers to the executive branch to circumvent the judicial branch in encroachment of property rights of individuals (guantanamo, TSA, etc), then they started to delegate the right to take your property to private corporations under supervision of the government (imminent domain, for example), now a private organization of "authors, artists, publishers, producers and distributors of music, film, games, interactive software..." can take away your Internet business without court order?

      Truly, it's like Martin Niemöller said.

      And Isn't it time to move on from bringing up what Martin Niemoller said to bringing up what Oscar Niemeyer did?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    10. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by DCTech · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Intend counts a lot. With a name like The Pirate Bay everyone pretty much knows what the site is meant, and used, for.

    11. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by aztrailerpunk · · Score: 1

      This is not doing it right either.

      --
      Foot placed squarely in mouth since 1983.
    12. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by na1led · · Score: 1

      I guess they should ban writable CD's and DVD's because it allows people to duplicate Copyright material.

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    13. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Commontwist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Holly - A green plant with berries used for festive purposes and slightly toxic to humans.

      Hollywood.

      By George, you're right!

    14. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by ae1294 · · Score: 2

      Looks like this time, they have been banned for good. Unless a new entity crops up and TPB starts sharing 'data' with the new entity.

      Maybe they could call it the Pirate Ocean...

    15. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Hentes · · Score: 2

      Still, it's a system where the accused are treated as guilty until proven their innocence.

    16. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      And Isn't it time to move on from bringing up what Martin Niemoller said to bringing up what Oscar Niemeyer did?

      Make hotdogs?

    17. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Oscar*Marvin

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    18. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      hasty googling lead to Oscar*Marvin

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    19. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 2

      Except that it's only limited to one site

      until BREIN decides that they want another one banned.

      --
      Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
    20. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget all those legitimate uses can be had in other ways, so the banning of all CD's and DVD's is justified.

    21. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They tried that with tapes more than once, but fortunately corporations weren't as above the law as they are today back then.

    22. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      And Isn't it time to move on from bringing up what Martin Niemoller said to bringing up what Oscar Niemeyer did?

      did it have anything to do with boloney and weiners?

      (sorry, in advance)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    23. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intent counts a lot, but not enough to prosecute someone. This is one of the more fascinated aspect of the TPH trial, they got prosecuted for a non-specific event. Purely fascinating.

    24. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, Brein can not. They can only block TPB because in earlier court cases they proved that TPB violated Copyright. TPB was then ordered to filter dutch internet users and when they did not, Brein had to start another court case to prove this was the case. The end result of this was that TPB and only the TPB should be blocked by ISPs.

      If another site is disliked by Brein, they have to start the whole circus again: start a court case proving the site is "evil", wait until the site doesn't comply with the verdict and then start another court case proving this to get them blocked.

      Most of this is pretty reasonable, the most important thing I don't agree with though is that TPB is not sharing the copyrighted material itself and thus should not be blocked. The users uploading the material are the offending parties and could be fought by Brein which is more fair. (Don't forget: downloading is mostly legal in the netherlands, it's the uploading that is illegal.

    25. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it noted that the legal offerings available at The Pirate Bay are not limited to the site and are also available from other sites and means. As such, preventing a large number of copyright infringements is justified.

      So I can go ahead and ban access as long as it is available somewhere else through other means? And that doesn't stifle free speech how?

      That sounds a lot like the "Free Speech Zones" that are springing up all over the place here in the U.S.. "Sure, you have freedom of speech, just only in a time, place, and manner in which we dictate due to a decision with which you have no input whatsoever" That sure doesn't seem like "freedom" to me.

    26. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Looks like this time, they have been banned for good. Unless a new entity crops up and TPB starts sharing 'data' with the new entity.

      Maybe they could call it the Pirate Ocean...

      You need to start smaller. If they ban Ocean where do you go from there? The Pirate Planet? That''ll probably get you sued by Disney or someone. How about "the Pirate Cove"(probably already trade marked), the Pirate Fiord, or the Pirate Loch". Burn through the "bay" synonyms first. ;-)

    27. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by AngryDeuce · · Score: 2

      They're not above the law, they are the law. These bills are literally written by the corporations themselves (and lobbyist groups acting on their behalf) and handed off to whichever representative they own, they don't even try to obfuscate it anymore.

    28. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Just as long as we fine Apple Inc. for not selling apples.

    29. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by camperdave · · Score: 2

      In this country, blank media are levied and artists can submit claims to the government to be reimbursed. In turn, we the citizenry can copy.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    30. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Mhtsos · · Score: 1

      Ninja dojo?

    31. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they still sue and prosecute for copyright infringement. Kind of like having their cake and shoving it in your face too.

    32. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by brainzach · · Score: 1

      There are no real alternatives to DVDs for legitimate uses. If you want to make a home movie and play it on a DVD player, then you have no choice.

      There are other sites that hosts legitimate torrent files that remove files that infringe copyrights. If you want access to legitimate torrent files, you can still get it.

    33. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have always been reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech. It is all about the definition of reasonable, which is why there are judges. For instance if I came in to your neighborhood in the dead of night a bullhorn and started espousing random political beliefs I would probably be cited or arrested for disturbing the peace, public nuisance, what have you. That would be a perfectly reasonable curtailing of my free speech right.

    34. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      All TPB has to do is set up some darknet sites and they'll be un-blockable worldwide.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    35. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by shaitand · · Score: 1

      you mean like the gazillion other torrent search sites which all index the pirate bay?

    36. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Starting to spring up? Pretty much every city/county in the US has required permits to protest for a long time. Which you can protest the government... as long as you aren't encouraging civil disobedience like piracy or the civil rights movement... only if and when the government gives you permission to do so.

    37. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by na1led · · Score: 1

      It's called Proprietary Media. They did this with some video cameras using Mini-DV tapes which wouldn't play in a VCR. Had to play them from your Camera - Hooked into your TV. They could also prevent DVD players from playing DVD backups, and require you take your camera media to a place to have them legitimized. If this trend continues, most of the luxurious we take for granted today will be gone.

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    38. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by DCTech · · Score: 1

      Sure, but then they won't get the millions of dollars they currently do. They're in the top 100 of most visited websites in the world. Their traffic will drop to 0.001% if they change to darknets, and that would destroy their site (and profits).

    39. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Isn't it time to move on from bringing up what Martin Niemoller said to bringing up what Oscar Niemeyer did?

      You mean move to Paris following the '64 coup in Brazil?

    40. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Kjella · · Score: 2

      I really doubt the judge checked to see if everything on The Pirate Bay is available elsewhere, if anyone but the judge made such an unsubstantiated claim it'd be "objection, your honor". What's more important is that the moment you decide user-submitted content isn't clean enough, it'll just move around. Those "other sites" are going to disappear one by one, until the only places left are big organizations running their own servers. The average person isn't going to be allowed to publish anything, because he's an unknown that could be trying to upload something pirated and the sites won't have time to check.

      Then again, it's not like the world will go under if TPB goes down. They're #76 on the TOP500, but MegaUpload is #68 and if you think that's all or even mostly legal traffic I got a bridge to sell you. File hosters are now willing to let you download huge files just for giving you a few ads and the chance to nag you into paying a few bucks for the bandwidth, they're the modern version of Usenet. Oh, not the Usenet from the 1980s but the "Full binary groups, long retention, look at how cheap our $/GB rates are" late Usenet. Plus the downloaders can't be charged with sharing, like on torrents.

      What keeps the ball rolling is that the TPB verdict is still not final, once it is - and unless they miraculously are found not guilty, which you can hope for but don't put money on it - they're not going try blocking it at the border, they're going to go for the kill. And like Napster I think they'll win another battle and still be losing the war because nothing they do change the fact that there's a very large number of people out there that want to pirate and will find a new way of doing it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    41. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could call it the Pirate Ocean...

      You need to start smaller. If they ban Ocean where do you go from there? The Pirate Planet? That''ll probably get you sued by Disney or someone. How about "the Pirate Cove"(probably already trade marked), the Pirate Fiord, or the Pirate Loch". Burn through the "bay" synonyms first. ;-)

      The Music Pirate Industry Association of America?

    42. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The verdict (Dutch) says in 4.56 that the ISP's can legally fight any incorrect domains specified by BREIN.

    43. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I think it's more likely their traffic would drop by 0.0001%. The authorities probably thought torrents were too technical for the average joe back in the days of Napster too.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    44. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      They would have to go to court for that again.

      Don't be misled by the summary: BREIN can only freely add IP addresses and web site names that are aliases for the pirate bay. If BREIN asks for IP addresses or web sites to be blocked that are not linked to TPB they are legally liable to fines.

    45. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Does not matter, tables are turned. Now the accuser (BREIN) can swiftly block you without order and you as an accused have to prove your innocence.

      Wrong. Read TFA. They can ONLY add extra domains or IP addresses that lead to TPB. Any others they have to go to court again. Or risk fines.

    46. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by alreaud · · Score: 0

      Available everywhere throughout the world for probably 5 quid a month... The good thing out of this might just be the explosion of the Freenet.

    47. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Leave the normal website up, but change it so it only contains instructions on how to get to their darknet site.

    48. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh that's great. So now the judge is going to tell us what sites we can and cannot visit. See the whole thing with TPD is that you can scream and talk all you want, in the end it is an enabler, and even TPB knows that. Why do you think their name is called The Pirate Bay. Don't be stupid. Yes there are taxi's, or other facilitators that can make you do bad stuff, but at least they try to stay in the middle. When a service is so obviously used for illegal filesharing, it completely makes sense to close that service down. If you had a facilitator which brings weapons in your country, you would do the same thing. But no one can fool another by not saying that the TPB is not responsible for providing illegal content. They provide the hashes, they are the enabler.

      But as the provider states, why don't they look at different business models? Why not let everyone download what they want, just ask for a annual download tax and be done with it? That way at least the artists get some revenue. And of course the provider knows how to do it technically. They are just stalling :-)

    49. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "Any others they have to go to court again. " Only after they wretched the business by their out-of-court closures.

      Compare to now, when any ISP would tell them to get a hike for any request of closure.

      We are not talking about rightful or not rightful closure, we are talking about whether any closure requires a court decision or not.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    50. Re:Right to submit future domains, but by ilsaloving · · Score: 1
  3. Et tu, Netherlands part 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Dutch ISP XS4ALL just decided to appeal again. They might win since BREIN based their offence on some very (VERY) poorly done statistics.

    1. Re:Et tu, Netherlands part 2 by antido · · Score: 1

      It is also supposed that this is a discriminatory accusation (why only 2 ISP's?), so this could be reconsidered by the judge. Though this could very well be a worse thing if they decide to ban it across all ISP's. Doesn't change the fact that this has passed, and in 10 days I won't be seeing The Pirate Bay anymore :(

    2. Re:Et tu, Netherlands part 2 by tsa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we didn't have XS4ALL our internet would have been regulated much much more. I should get a subscription with them.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    3. Re:Et tu, Netherlands part 2 by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Just get a proxy or VPN, they're free. I don't want to advertise any, but you can find a decent one in a couple of minutes.

    4. Re:Et tu, Netherlands part 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also called it "Censor" a "Black Day" for the free internet. It is still unclear if Ziggo will do the same.

    5. Re:Et tu, Netherlands part 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they only went after those two ISP's because they're supposedly the largest ISP's in Holland, maybe BREIN thought they might make more of a difference if they'd first tackle the big ones and then hunt down the smaller ISP's. I like how it turns out that it doesn't make much of a difference XD not only because you can still download via proxy's and VPN's but also because BREIN wants to shut down illegal downloading altogether, and this is not really going to help them do so. Pyrrhus-victory :)

    6. Re:Et tu, Netherlands part 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Brein started this action against Ziggo only, but XS4ALL voluntarily added themselves to the defendants because they wanted a decision on this matter.

    7. Re:Et tu, Netherlands part 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you should. I know cable companies deliver better bandwidth nowadays, but if you want to keep using bandwidth it might be wise to give your money to a provider that is actually willing to fight for your right to use the internet. If we ('the users of the internet') don't act, pretty soon there will be no internet to use. At least not as we knew it, that's for sure.

    8. Re:Et tu, Netherlands part 2 by Zeikzeil · · Score: 1

      They've been doing stuff like that since forever. There aren't many companies that would do such a thing. That's the main reason I won't be easily persuaded to leave their service.

    9. Re:Et tu, Netherlands part 2 by WarwickRyan · · Score: 1

      > They've been doing stuff like that since forever. There aren't many companies that would do such a thing. That's the main reason I won't be easily persuaded to leave their service.

      It's the reason why I pay more to stay on their service, instead of switching over to a faster connection with "we lie about our monthly fees" UPC.

    10. Re:Et tu, Netherlands part 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took a cable sub due to the high speeds they provide, but I never cancelled my XS4ALL subscription, partly because I can't put myself through the hassle of changing my e-mail address for basically everything I ever registered with for the last 13 years or so, but also bacue despite XS4ALL being a KPN subsidiary now and having grown a lot larger than the orignal club of hacktivists that they started out as, I have to admire how they're still right on top of social issues concerning the internet.

      I'll never forget how they battled in court against the Scientologists for over a decade, who sued them for refusing to take down a customer's website that hosted some Scientology material (the Fishman Affidavit). Talk about standing up for your customer's rights..

      They were also outspoken opponents of the data retention laws (which got passed anyway, sadly) and a number of other important issues that impacted the freedom of and on the web.

    11. Re:Et tu, Netherlands part 2 by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      If we didn't have XS4ALL our internet would have been regulated much much more. I should get a subscription with them.

      Historically xs4all have fought several worthwhile battles - like the one against the Cult of Scientology (CoS). Someone hosted the 'secret' teachings of CoS (read: badly written scifi) and CoS demanded removal and took it to court. As this happened in the US and they forgot that court documents are public, the xs4all user (Karin Spaink) simply published those documents (The Fishman Affidavit) instead. CoS demanded a takedown but xs4all fought them and won.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  4. Accelerating? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or is the crusade to monitor everything accelerating? Now I know why the world ends in Dec 2012! All of these Big Brother movements will collide into a giant explosion!

    You know - what if every page anyone has ever looked at leaked and became public domain?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    1. Re:Accelerating? by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      Don't worry, the more they tighten their grip the more files will slip through their fingers.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:Accelerating? by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the more they tighten their grip the more files will slip through their fingers.

      Continue with the operation. You may fire when ready.

    3. Re:Accelerating? by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Thanks to international law, which in almost every country supercedes national laws. So more and more often you are seeing contraints being applied to countries in the form of international treaties as a sort of end run around a country's government (which can either vote for or against the whole treaty package and not bits of it).

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Accelerating? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Copyrighted stuff can't just "leak" into public domain. Copyright is not like a trade secret, or a trademark.

  5. dot bit by Maquis196 · · Score: 1

    So get everyone to use http://dot-bit.org/Main_Page

    Ofc being a wiki page someone has just ruined it but anyone who should know enough about torrents should also have it in their locker to get dot bit running and then by using piratebay.bit they'll never have to worry about this sort of rubbish again. (check our previous revisions for all the information)

    The alternatives are either remembering a static IP address (which could change at a moments notice) or use an alternative DNS root which has its own worse problems.

    1. Re:dot bit by DCTech · · Score: 1

      Neither of those work because they block IP's too.

    2. Re:dot bit by Maquis196 · · Score: 1

      undid last two vandal edits, main_page as it should be

    3. Re:dot bit by Maquis196 · · Score: 1

      ah my bad, didnt even RTFS properly. Thought it was a SOPA like dns block. Well guess TOR it is then. Get a magnet link from the site and let the torrent client do it all.

    4. Re:dot bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or, of course, they can always go to https://google.com, search for what they want on TPB, and then view the cached page for the actual link. If the start blocking tracker IP addresses directly, they can still switch to dht mode. This also doesn't prevent them from using any one of a number of proxy/vpn products out there that will let them connect to TPB (in some cases for free). Basically, it's just more of the legal whack-a-mole that is all the rage at the moment, I assume so that lawyers can continue to generate the billable hours that justify their hours (sorry, nothing can justify their existence).

    5. Re:dot bit by Fri13 · · Score: 1

      Why are you suggesting that other people should join to brake the law and copyright owners rights in those countries?

      Are you one of those people who goes and suggest companies to download GPL licensed software, modify it, sell it and license it with own license and never respecting the GPL license?

      Is it just OK that we who want others to respect our copyrights what is licensed with GPL, but we should not respect their copyrights?

       

    6. Re:dot bit by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Why are you suggesting the only reason to use TPB is to violate copyright, when it's clearly not true?

    7. Re:dot bit by icebraining · · Score: 1

      TPB doesn't even run a tracker anymore.

    8. Re:dot bit by mhelander · · Score: 1

      I'll even bet he's just the type to go around downloading and using free open source software without paying a penny for it!

    9. Re:dot bit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      .onion and .i2p sites are the way to go!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:dot bit by shaitand · · Score: 1

      That's an odd notion. You know the GPL is only needed because of copyright right? Without copyright everyone would have the freedoms of the GPL and more for all software that was distributed...

  6. Griefing by Aladrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This has the potential for some serious griefing. Since they'll keep blocking IPs and such, obviously TPB needs new IPs constantly. Cloud time! How many of Amazon's IPs do you think they'll have to block before realizing that they're blocking legit sites, too?

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    1. Re:Griefing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Never fear, Citizen, SOPA also allows any company to allege to Amazon/Visa that their copyright is infringed, and upon such allegation, Amazon/Visa will be required to block these filthy pirates or else be held liable for their infringement. Your government is working around the clock to protect you. City 17 -- it's safer here. Now pick up that can.

    2. Re:Griefing by djsmiley · · Score: 2

      This is how it'll play out

      Pirate bay has a "down day" - its publicised and everyone giggles

      pirate bay sets their A name record to the IP of the dutch goverment webserver chosen at random. They wait long enough, it gets banned. They then set the A record to another dutch goverment webserver.... etc

      Unless theres some other way of getting the IP of a website, other than DNS this is the only way I can see they will block it, and so tpb can _Easily_ and rather amusingly abuse this.

      Block google? Block hotmail, block anything they like simply by using the IP. Trolololol. :D

      --
      - http://www.milkme.co.uk
    3. Re:Griefing by Maquis196 · · Score: 2

      I'd also want them to put in a subdomain that links to the official site so it will always work as intended for everyone who's in the know but still get to stiff the opposition.

    4. Re:Griefing by jemtallon · · Score: 1

      Love. This.

    5. Re:Griefing by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      its not just IP addr, its IP-addr and port, as a combo.

      so maybe they'll have to start blocking ports, one by one, on each IP!

      hey, that sounds fun. the compute power for their filters is going to cost them more and more. I guess cisco and those guys will have fun selling more filtering hardware...

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Griefing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that it will be pretty blatantly obvious that this is what they're doing.

      pirate bay sets their A name record to the IP of the dutch goverment webserver chosen at random.

      You say that like no one at BREIN is going to load up the website to do due diligence to show that it's in fact hosting BREIN-copyrighted stuff.
      Based on the court decision, BREIN is liable for any damage they do to other sites - so they'd definitely want to be able to show that a site/IP was hosting those materials at the time they requested the block.

      The GP's idea was better - hop around on the different Amazon cloud hosts until they're all blocked, then switch to another provider an use up all their IPs too.

    7. Re:Griefing by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      That's the fundamental flaw with this bullshit I just can't believe they don't understand. Because there is no real recourse for someone that gets hit with copyright infringement bullshit and their site nuked, all a person has to do is:

      1. Identify blog/site you do not agree with
      2. Post link to infringing content then report
      3. Site gets nuked from orbit
      4. ????
      5. Profit!

      We already know that these Intellectual Property holders themselves host their shit specifically to catch pirates. They've been caught before. What is stopping them from just having someone spam infringing content on a site to get it shut it down? For instance, uploading infringing shit all over Youtube themselves so they can file a claim and get Youtube itself knocked off the net?

      Yeah, that seems a little extreme, seeing as how Google would go to war over something like that. But is a personal website owner going to have the resources to protect themselves against underhanded shit like that? Of course not.

      This bill is using "Stop the pirates!" fear mongering bullshit to give themselves a dominant position on the internet and lock out any competition, regardless.

    8. Re:Griefing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might load up the website, but the moment it goes into a round robin dns queue or meta-redirect service that pays attention to where it's loaded from they're done for.

      My undergrad years ago banned linux in the dorms because it was "insecure". A quick firewall rule returned RST to any connection from the campus IT subnet. They couldn't figure out why my 'windows box' wasn't taking their patch software.

      Things get even more powerful when your services mock themself depending on who or where connects. Ever written a webpage that references a hostname only existing within a DNS service you wrote yourself? It's not just useful for botnets--but for immediate low latency internationalization if you watch routes.

      You don't have to get BREIN to load the page actual page--just make them mistakenly block an IP you don't actually own. I'm sure they'll check in advance--but the goal with that is to force them to take part in the arms race and automate.

      Javascript rewrites, fastflux dns, round robin...

      A little effort with a modification and you'll have them scrambling to undo the stuff they block when you check the netblock on inbound connections and start serving up 198.41.0.4 and similar. Hell, I'd start looking up their email, SIP, BGP and DNS servers in advance just for this purpose... may as well take communications down and make it harder to troubleshoot the clusterfuck.

      Sooner or later they'll automate the tool, and you can start moving the check query to IDS protected hosts at companies they use themselves. Watch those repeated HTTP get requests on government mailserver drop them in a banned list for 24 hours. Add in authoritative nameservers to domains you don't have, and the backup in somebody else's block and watch as the IDS starts to ban their robot.

      No... if they want to go to war with TPB...the TBP can give them war.

    9. Re:Griefing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And thats where DNSSEC comes into play. Piate Bay will lose their ability to make any DNS record changes. Only the upstream will be able to.

      DNSSEC will be another tool used to grab control.

      Only solution is a Pier to Pier DNS

  7. Misleading title... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Court attempts to force ISPs to block TBP due to their own incompetance in not understanding that what they're asking for isn't possible.

    1. Re:Misleading title... by Fri13 · · Score: 1

      So we should remove laws about killing and murdering because the laws do not stop people murdering and killing others?

      The law should be a guideline.... something what people respect and honors.
      The situation has gone bad because people have been brainwashed that competition and international corporations are good thing.
      As competition and international corporations are those what drivens greed and weak minded people to do anything to be on winning side, were it to rise copyright time from 20 years to 150 years or lobbying politicions to support their cause and their needs instead civilians....

      Money talks and bullshit walks.... That is what is left from competition and international corporations.

      There is way to fix things, it is not to fight or compete. It is about fixing the problems what were created in the first place.

      We need to talk people, we need to write to media, we need to demand rights. We can not allow big corporations to compete and ruin whole world because they beliefe they need to do so.

      If someone brakes the law, you dont brake to law to catch him.
      It is hard to show a good example to your kid when your neighbord or someone else shows bad example. So you dont show a bad example as well, but you explain it to your kid and then you discuss about problem with those who are giving a bad example. And if they dont agree, then you need to talk to people around you and get them to understand that giving a bad example is not allowed by anyone.

    2. Re:Misleading title... by lgw · · Score: 1

      So we should remove laws about killing and murdering because the laws do not stop people murdering and killing others?

      If the laws had no effect, we should, or if the effect was moremordering and killing. It's not right to make a law against something without regard to consequences (of course, we do this all the time). Will the actual consequence of the law, after people chnage their behavior and try to game the new system, be better or worse for society? Will banning X mean fewer people use X, or just that we lode visibility into how many people are using X and any possiblity to help those harmed?

      That should be the basis upon which laws are evaluated - but of course it never is. Mostly, when poeple pass a law against X, they just don't want to see X around any more, and don't care at all who the law helps or hurts as long as they don't have to see it.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  8. Pinky and the BREIN by PortaDiFerro · · Score: 2

    Try to take over the world again

    1. Re:Pinky and the BREIN by PRMan · · Score: 1

      This would be funnier with a video clip...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Pinky and the BREIN by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      One of them's a genius, the other's unseen.

  9. And we just got Netneutrality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is a 'rechtbank' (lowest court) judgement. There was just the announcement that there will be an appeal. So this is not the last we will hear of this. Let's hope our internet freedom does mean something to higher judges.

  10. It wont work by lehphyro · · Score: 1

    You can't block websites, they'll just pop up under different names and addresses easily discovered with a google search. You should define which websites are allowed like North Korea does with their own internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_North_Korea).

  11. So... by JockTroll · · Score: 0

    ... Do you still believe the media mob will not prevail? That there can be any negotiation with them? That they can be fought by technological means alone? Hint: technology is on the side of the one with the most resources, and this ain't us. They won't stop. Their money says they will win. It's time to slice flesh open or give up and admit defeat.

    --
    Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    1. Re:So... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Agreed Troll. Not so much that we should fight over copyright itself but the corruption the media companies have clearly demonstrated is a very good reason for rebellion.

  12. Really blocked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they really block it, or does adding:

    194.71.107.15 thepiratebay.org

    to your hosts file still work?

  13. Circumventing an ISP block - methodologies by HBI · · Score: 1

    These aren't so hard - SOCKS proxy works, for instance.

    That said, I would suspect that shadow DNS projects would get a kick in the pants by this type of activity as well as SOPA.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  14. Drole de Guerre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europe has started economic war - mainly against its own citizens. They do not want the people, the intelligent, the malcontent, the dissident, the visionary ... to have venues, information, open debate ... wiggle-space. Very Nazi-esque. Clogging up the valves without fixing the process worked wondes in Fukushima. But The World isn't Japanese.

    And, when things blow up they'll say it's the critic's fault. And all the folk that recieve silly color-codes on their modern-day d filecard counterparts - because they don't like waterfall-misery (as opposed to 'trickle-downs').

    By the way. The Nazis (successfully) used Dutch banks to launder corporate funds past the surrender and, later, back int the good old f*land. And, virtually every northwestern and East European country had a volunterr regiment in the SS. These days, they do technocrat-Gauleiter work for banksters. Greece is a modern day Vichy. Minus the resistance.

    They're stepping up the tempo. I wish it were possible to say "that's all".

    1. Re:Drole de Guerre by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      And Swiss banks had secrecy laws to protect people from their own tyrannical regimes, such as Jews trying to escape the Nazis.

      Now that the US regime has morphed, the IRA finds it necessary to pursue US citizens and crack the Swiss open.

      Did you know, the USA was once a tax haven, with matching economic performance.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    2. Re:Drole de Guerre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nice humanitarian 'libertarian' banks kept most of the dead Jews deposits. They contested and obstructed a vast number of claims for decades. I cannot imagine bankers failing to profit on 'stagnant' resources - be it by leveraging, as collateral, credit certificate swaps, etc.

      The Swiss banks equally protected the Nazis deposits - of stuff they stole from everyone as well as the Jews. Anyone that on a bad day got tagged or color-coded as "troublemaker", "malingerer", ... for any reason (or lack whereof) at all.

      Just as they protected the deposits of all the war profiteers, spy networks, dictators, corrupt quartermasters, shavers, scammers, and ubuquitous black market 'survivors'. And gangsters in general.

      The honest (upper) middle-class deposits probably didn't account for a fraction of that.

      Occupied Holland was still a money-laundering clearing house for Nazi corporations, that successfuly rotated vast amounts of loot past the surrender and back into their hands after the war. Like diamonds, recently. And God knows-what-else, nowadays.

  15. copyright enforcement isn't censorship by tverbeek · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Equating the enforcement of copyright to censorship of free speech is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest thing the piracy crowd have tried to do.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:copyright enforcement isn't censorship by The+Askylist · · Score: 2

      Not as intellectually dishonest as trying to equate copyright infringement with theft, or conflating copyright infringement with "organised crime" or "terrorism", as the copyright lobby has consistently done.

      When these people face up to the fact that their business model is akin to monasteries claiming the right to license the right to print bibles because their scribes deserve a living, maybe they will see that they should be doing something else.

      If that means that fewer Mission Impossible - XVI rehashes are made, then so be it - if something is worth creating, someone will create it and will find a way to make money from it without stretching the dubious logic of the legal system beyond its limits.

      I have never "pirated" anything, nor would I do so, but to come down on the side of the parasitic and doomed rights holders rather than facing reality is frankly stupid.

    2. Re:copyright enforcement isn't censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is that blocking piratebay does not enforce copyright. Enforcing copyrights would be to find the persons leaking pre-release dvd's etc. blocking piratebay actually does less to enforce copyright that blocking google would do. Claiming that blocking google would not be a free speech issue would place you squarely with the freedom and democracy loving National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China.

      All it does is to give some people a good feeling of "something's being done".

    3. Re:copyright enforcement isn't censorship by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Claiming that censoring culture is not a violation of free speech is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest thing the copyright cartels have tried to do.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    4. Re:copyright enforcement isn't censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretending that you give a fuck about "censoring culture" (as if) when all you care about is getting new movies for free is how intellectually dishonest you are.

    5. Re:copyright enforcement isn't censorship by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      I haven't watched a movie in a couple of years, and two movies total in the two years before.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  16. Shutdown the Internet? by na1led · · Score: 1

    They'll have to shutdown the whole Internet to stop Pirating!

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
  17. As a Dutch guy, my response in summary: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    KANKERZOOI

  18. Downloading is legal in the Netherlands by Frans+Faase · · Score: 1

    And the most interesting fact is that downloading is legal in the Netherlands under the condition that it is stricktly for private use. And that includes material that violates copyrights. Uploading of illegal materials (that you do not own the rights to) is illegal. Torrent clients that also share/upload are illegal when use to download illegal materials.

    1. Re:Downloading is legal in the Netherlands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Materials don't violate copyrights, materials cannot be illegal. Only actions (by humans) can be illegal. Such as copying (downloading/uploading).

  19. The Dutch are apathic shitheels by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1, Informative

    Believe me, I know.
    And Stichting Brein (=Braindead), under director Tim 'brown arm' Kuik
    is a limp dick sissy.
    Guess where his nick comes from -- he likes to have it up American asses.

    --
    bjd

  20. Games and software are illegal by Frans+Faase · · Score: 1

    Small correction: Downloading games and software can be illegal if you do not own the rights and/or have a licence.

  21. catch em in meatspace! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://pastebin.com/2XDhvB4V

  22. Why is the media industry so powerful? by Froggels · · Score: 1

    I know that they have plenty of lawyers, but that can't be the full story. I just have to stop and wonder what makes them think that their right to entertain should outweigh other people's civil rights.

    1. Re:Why is the media industry so powerful? by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Bread and circuses. The powerful cannot maintain their grip on power without bread and circuses to keep the people placated. We wouldn't want people having free time to reflect and come up with their own ideas, would we?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Why is the media industry so powerful? by cpghost · · Score: 2

      The media industry are the makers of popularity. Without their blessing, a politician is dead fish. So no politician would dare to oppose this media cartel, lest he or she loses all public(ized) support.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    3. Re:Why is the media industry so powerful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the time being only, Look at how many of Internet posters are becoming popular nationally or even internationally, true that its for the worst reasons most of the times but in a few years the internet can start to become the truest forms of spreading your word to everyone and become popular on your own merit without the need of social corporations.
      That's why they fight "piracy" so hard, they are terrified of that outcome.

      That's why so may laws that want to kill the neutrality of internet, they see how powerful it can be and want to control it.

      That's why the people should fight it as hard as they can, and fight as hard as they can lobbies and demand the separation of state and corporate entities as they once demanded the separation of state and church.

  23. Without a court order... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gives them the right to submit future domains/IP addresses to be blocked in the future without court order.

    While you were all arguing over Godwin/Nazis, did anyone notice that they can now submit any address they don't like for blocking, without a court order!!!!

  24. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good. Those jerks have two of my books on their site and wouldn't take them down. I hope they die of cancer.

    1. Re:Good. by alreaud · · Score: 0

      Pobrecito... BTW, How many copies of your book have you sold?

      So they block piratebay.com, it becomes piratecove.org, then they block that, so it becomes piratebooty.net, then pretty soon they block every site with the word "pirate" in the name, so they use the name buccaneerbay.info, but they eventually block all sites with the word "buccaneer" in the name, and after 10 years time all words have been blocked from searches, and we are back to plain old IP addresses.

      Arrrggggg matey....

  25. Why not? by pearl298 · · Score: 1

    After all much of the USA watches a TV "news" network (aka FAUX NEWS) owned and controlled by a foreign (UK) criminal!

    1. Re:Why not? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1
      Wikipedia says:

      Keith Rupert Murdoch, AC, KSG (born 11 March 1931) is an Australian-American media mogul. He is the founder and Chairman and CEO of News Corporation, the world's second-largest media conglomerate

  26. It's not as bad as you think by UmbraDei · · Score: 1

    Could've been a lot worse. The current sentence specifically states TPB because they were already found guilty in another Dutch copyright-infringement case against Brein last year. This is merely a decision to enforce blocking of the 'illegal' site. Also, as it's in a low court with a single judge, and appeal has already been filed, this'll probably go on for years. The good thing to that, is that it'll eventually end up in the European Court of Justice, which earlier already decided (in a case against the Belgian equivalent of Brein, SABAM) that the intrusion of privacy required to block a domain is not outweighed by copyright infringement.

    And even if that doesn't happen, Brein still has to get EVERY SINGLE OTHER torrent site convicted, each in their separate trials, and prove every time that the specific site is used for illegal activities, something that in this case cost them a year and a half.

    Third and finally: The fine the ISP's are risking is set to 10.000 euros per day, and then limited to a maximum of 250.000. If all else fails, I'm pretty sure the Dutch'll just pay that.

    All in all, I'm not that worried, and this is clearly not as big a threat to freedom on the internet as some of the decisions brewing over the Atlantic...

  27. Will they block Google's cache too? by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 2

    If you enter into google "site:thepiratebay.org" followed by whatever you were looking for, it will bring up cached copies of TPB pages. The magnet links are just text. So does the court order block Google's cached pages also, or is this a trivial workaround?

    1. Re:Will they block Google's cache too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google does not show cached copies of TPB pages.

    2. Re:Will they block Google's cache too? by alreaud · · Score: 0

      Where are you at? Put the following address in your browser address bar
      https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=piratebay.org+tron

      If you hover over the ">>" you get the right frame to pop up with a display that says the page is cached...

    3. Re:Will they block Google's cache too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also they can't block Tor - and TPB, although a single point of failure, anyway needed only to download the small torrent file, and the DHT takes care of finding peers without central tracker. Good thing is - they can't block the torrent protocol. It has legitimate uses, and some open source uses it - enough to keep DPI from filtering it, although not from throttling it down (and ISP's won't generally do that without a court order). Tor is easy to set up and easy to use, even for the average Joe if someone installs the browser bundle for him and renames the icon to "Internet for torrents".

  28. More people visited movietheathers in 2011 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Dutch newspaper 'Spits' wrote today that movietheaters have had a terrific year (2011), many more people came to see movies..
    So.. pirating movies kills the movie industry ???

    Good luck with blocking the PirateBay... It will never happen, another filesharing system will emerge and the saga continues.

  29. And so it begins. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Lets watch the wack-a-mole game continue to intensify and get ugly.

    Sort of like what happened when the RIAA attacked Napster, the resulting press opened up the entire p2p concept to the unwashed masses and 'piracy' blossomed. I have a feeling this game will end up driving people ( and tech ) more underground with more secure tactics to not be caught, AND generate lots of press to bring even more 'violators' to the scene.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  30. however by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ISP xs4all as well as the other one (ziggo) are aready going in higher appeal. When things go wrong, we will demonstrate.

  31. Getting new IP laws, modern lobby-style by waterbear · · Score: 2

    >They are just doing what the United States is telling them to do.
    >Honestly, Why are the Citizens of the Netherlands allowing the USA To dictate their own laws? Why are you people not protesting in the streets over this stuff?

    >>>You honestly think there would be no copyright laws abroad without American pressure? Really?

    No, no, no, that's not the argument about US influence on copyright laws and other IP laws of other countries. They had their own laws before -- and even before the US joined the Berne Copyright Convention. Mostly they were better balanced too.

    What the lobbying influence has done is to insinuate changes that skew the balance that used to be set, between the authors'/publishers' interests and the public interest.

    Copyright terms have been drastically lengthened. New infringement offences have been created in the law. New procedural powers have been introduced that can lead to new claims, often enabling control of materials and works that are not even in copyright and would not be eligible for copyright at all (like the 'TPM's that can be used to padlock anything, copyright or not).

    On the other hand, look what has become of the parts of the law that were intended to ensure public rights broadly equivalent to 'fair use': in some places they used to go farther, in others not so far, as in the US. They have been narrowed, whittled down, even taken away from some classes of user entirely, under the influence of this lobbying pressure.

    And why or how has it been happening? It often isn't the 'citizens' or even their legislatures primarily doing this. These insidious cripplings of public rights often come in through the relatively new channel of international treaties or EU directives carved out in private conferences, not in legislative assemblies. 'Poison pills' of rights removal have been insinuated as part of larger packages: their design has been fixed so that for some larger and usually economic reason, the 'victim country' won't refuse the 'poison pill', so as not to lose whatever the unrelated material was.

    Then, what happens in the local legislative assembly is that the mass of lawmakers are held by their bought-and-sold government executives as if at pistol-point, with a dilemma: they can either rubberstamp the whole thing or reject the whole thing. But the design has fixed it so that the latter will be practically infeasible.

    The democratic legislative process is not primarily to blame here, it is the sharks who have bypassed it and subverted it that are to blame.

    -wb-

  32. BREIN steals music ... and run a protection racket by benedictaddis · · Score: 2

    BREIN have a history of playing fast and loose with the law, and the artists they claim to represent. Dutch performer Melchior Rietveldt wrote music for a BREIN anti-piracy video, on the condition that it was only used at a local film festival. BREIN then apparently re-purposed the music for a number of retail DVDs, without bothering to pay Rietveldt, or even ask him.

    Worse, Rietveldt claims that when he discovered BREIN's omission and contacted a local recording rights group seeking restitution, nothing happened - until a BREIN board member Jochem Gerrits (who also owned a music label) contacted him to offer a deal. Gerrits would get BREIN to pay up ... in return for a 33% cut.

  33. Money, accountants and lawyers. by snemiro · · Score: 1

    Everything is done in order to maximise the earnings of the administrators, leaving nothing to the real workers. Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

  34. So what is your point? by pearl298 · · Score: 1

    Last time I checked Australia was not part of the US!

    We ALL know that CEOs NEVER break the law too - can you say ENRON, et al???

    1. Re:So what is your point? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      My point is Murdoch is not British. You said he was from the UK.

    2. Re:So what is your point? by pearl298 · · Score: 1

      He is CERTAINLY NOT American!

      He lives in the UK and I understand (from the BBC) that he is a UK citizen.

      So do you HAVE a point or do you just want to quibble?

    3. Re:So what is your point? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Yes I have a point. It was very simple in the last post but I will restate it again. He is not from the UK. He was born in Australia, and now holds US citizenship, and his nationality is "American". These are facts, not points of opinion, no point to argue them.

    4. Re:So what is your point? by pearl298 · · Score: 1

      Your "facts" are wrong!

    5. Re:So what is your point? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      OK, whatever, troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
      Born Keith Rupert Murdoch 11 March 1931 (age 80) Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
      Nationality United States
      Citizenship United States (naturalized 1985)

  35. SOPA and stuff??? by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    Harmonize this!

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.