Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dutch Court Forces ISPs To Block the Pirate Bay

Posted by Unknown on from the censorship-is-hip dept.

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."

25 of 304 comments (clear)

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

      I am pretty sure he refers to this guy

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

      Don't be a Godwin Nazi.

      --
      sig: sauer
    6. 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
    7. Re:Et tu, Netherlands? by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

      --
      Slipping shoelaces ?
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.

    16. 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!
    17. 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..

    18. 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!
  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 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."

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

  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 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!