Dutch Pirateparty Refuses Order To Take Down Proxy

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dutch Pirateparty Refuses Order To Take Down Proxy

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday April 4, 2012 @02:55AM from the copyright-is-so-20th-century dept.

New submitter CAPSLOCK2000 writes "The Dutch Pirateparty has refused an order from BREIN to take down a proxy to The Pirate Bay. Last month BREIN (the distribution-industries paralegal outfit) forced a number of ISPs to block The Pirate Bay; the first site ever blocked in the Netherlands. Immediately people started using proxies at other ISPs to get to TPB. BREIN then threatened a number of those proxies with legal action. As most of these are run by hobbyists without legal or financial means there was little resistance. Now the Dutch Pirateparty has decided to stand up to the intimidation and refuses to take down its proxy. Today they sent their response in style: by uploading it to The Pirate Bay. In translation: 'The Pirateparty disputes your claim and will not comply with your request.'" Via Torrentfreak, Pirate Party chairman Dirk Poot: "There are a plethora of proxy sites on the internet. On almost any them TPB can by reached, even with a single URL. That's not even mentioning the ways you can get to TPB if you're willing to put in more effort than saving a single URL. If this keeps going there will be no Internet left by the time BREIN has achieved its goal of making TPB inaccessible. ... In their self-righteous zealousness they have brought substantial damage to the free and open Internet."

73 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What goes around... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 03:00 · Score: 4, Funny

As the BREIN lawyers tried to serve a legal document to one of the pirate bay guys via twitter, I suppose that sending replies using similar means is only fair. To bad that they cannot officially read the reply as the website is blocked...
Re:SHOUTING by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 03:01 · Score: 0

Submitted must have trouble with the lameness filter.
You were able to post your useless, irrelevant comment. Therefore, the lameness filter must be defective.
Well.... by TheCarp · 2012-04-04 03:07 · Score: 5, Funny

To use a physical analogy....its like seeing a door in frame, attached to no wall, and sending a note to the owner that he should really lock his door lest someone go through it.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
1. Re:Well.... by theshowmecanuck · 2012-04-04 03:14 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  But first you need Spoc to mind meld with you to convince you the rest of the internet isn't real.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
2. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 03:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  To use a physical analogy....its like seeing a door in frame, attached to no wall, and sending a note to the owner that he should really lock his door lest someone go through it.
  To use another physical analogy... it's like being a complete fuckin' idiot who thinks bad laws are going to save an industry that has outlived its usefulness.
3. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 03:32 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  ...first you need Spoc to mind meld...
  Turn in your geek card, you are done.
4. Re:Well.... by TheCarp · 2012-04-04 03:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The first rule of the tautology club is the first rule of the tautology club!
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
5. Re:Well.... by cpu6502 · 2012-04-04 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  In one of the episodes, the Vulcan high priestess called him "spook" (bad foreign accent).
  .
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
6. Re:Well.... by AliasMarlowe · 2012-04-04 04:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  ...first you need Spoc to mind meld...
  Turn in your geek card, you are done.
  No. It's just he runs KDE, and runs out of "k"s early each day.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
7. Re:Well.... by j00r0m4nc3r · 2012-04-04 04:26 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps he was referring to the Sex Professionals of Canada group...
8. Re:Well.... by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-04-04 04:29 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  That explains a great deal about Shatner's character, actually.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
9. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  it's like being a complete fuckin' idiot who thinks bad laws are going to save an industry that has outlived its usefulness.
  But it's the only way to save /.!!!!1!1one1!eleventyone.
10. Re:Well.... by camperdave · 2012-04-04 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  An insightful tautology is a tautology that is insightful.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
11. Re:Well.... by idontgno · 2012-04-04 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Tautological tautology is tautological.
  Problem, Wittgenstein?
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
12. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  You're bad-mouthing T'Pau there... and she didn't say "Spook". If you're going to take the mick you should stick with the thees and thous that she, alone among Vulcans, seems to use.
13. Re:Well.... by theshowmecanuck · 2012-04-04 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  I knew I should have previewed it. But does a typo really warrant being labelled flamebait. ???
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
14. Re:Well.... by theshowmecanuck · 2012-04-04 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  That's scary... 'cause I do run KDE. :)
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
15. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 19:33 · Score: 0
  
  POTM!!!
It's time.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 03:07 · Score: 0

...to flood Holland with dutch-language proxies.....
Re:SHOUTING by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 03:10 · Score: 0

this post confirms it.
Oh, yeah, that'll work. by JustAnotherIdiot · 2012-04-04 03:11 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm sure that lawbreakers will stop breaking the law if you simply ask them.

--
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
1. Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  and i'm sure lawmakers will just give up if you ignore them long enough
2. Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work. by JustAnotherIdiot · 2012-04-04 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Why not?
  Lawmakers use that same tactic when it comes to people asking for/speaking against laws.
  
  --
  What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
3. Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-04-04 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure that lawbreakers will stop breaking the law if you simply ask them.
  Uhm, how is that relevant to the subject of this post? No law being broken in sight.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
4. Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work. by cpu6502 · 2012-04-04 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  I approve of your signature. ;-)
  The 6502 (and variants) were used in tons of equipment. Apple I/II, Apple IIgs (16 bit), Atari 400/800 computers, Commodore 64/128/Plus4, Commodore 1541/71/81 disk drives, Atari 2600/5200/7800 consoles, NES console, and Super Nintendo/Famicom console.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
5. Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work. by Hentes · 2012-04-04 04:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  When linking is a crime then everyone becomes a criminal.
6. Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work. by Clogoddess · 2012-04-04 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  I was about to write a sarcastic reply to the statement, "No law being broken in sight."
  But K.S.K. is right. The law broken and the law breaker are, indeed, hard to define. The lawbreaker being the government... Hm? The lawbreaker being the corporation that mis-uses a system of law in order to profit... Hmm? We have traditions! Corporations are _expected_ to mis-use the legal system to suit their primary goal.
  :: define a corporation as a being that struggles for more profit :: When the result is profit, is a corporation breaking a law?? In a moral world. But By Definition, NO in this global _invented_ system of arcane rules, so the result is as you see. The system has several players so, like a RICO conspiracy, one can always shift blame to the other, making resistance difficult. Who are the lawbreakers? Both sides, i think.
  --The law breakers are certainly the law makers.-- I see misuse of laws rampant around me. The Las Vegas police give out bogus tickets that can easily be dismissed -- but only by appearing in person, back in Las Vegas, requiring you pay for a round-trip back to Las Vegas!
  The system of profits uses the system of law.
  The complications are obfuscations.
7. Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  I read that as "lawmakers will stop breaking the law", and it made total sense.
8. Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  Well, I still cross streets and roads where there are not crosswalks. I still fart in your general direction.
9. Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  The pirate bay and all means to open it are blocked in Belgium as well on the ISP level. The only way to open it is through TOR.
10. Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work. by TranquilVoid · 2012-04-04 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, the old argument-by-euphimism. The crime is not simply linking. This is like saying "shooting someone in the head is just moving a few atoms, and we all move atoms, why is this illegal?"
  To be as fair as possible to your point, are you suggesting that linking to illegal/banned/infringing content is so indirect that is becomes too easy to accidentally break the law? Or that somehow the indirect nature excuses the evasion if you are doing it deliberately?
  If the latter, I would argue it is similar to rich individuals or companies evading tax; if they find a loophole in the current laws then the government moves to close it, because their end goal is for people and corporations to pay their 'fair share' of tax. Similarly here, the end goal is to remove access to pirated content.
11. Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work. by AmonTheMetalhead · 2012-04-04 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell are you talking about? I live in Belgium and I can access the bay with no issue at all!
  
  The only thing that is blocked is resolving the old DNS names.
12. Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work. by Hentes · 2012-04-04 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  The crime is not simply linking.
  So what is the crime? All they did was providing a link to a banned site. Despite their similar ideologies they are not associated in any way with Piratebay.
  
  To be as fair as possible to your point, are you suggesting that linking to illegal/banned/infringing content is so indirect that is becomes too easy to accidentally break the law?
  With the number of fake torrents (many of them uploaded by copyright holders) this is actually quite possible. Even without any mischief, there are genuine misunderstandings: some time ago I was searching for Eclipse (free software, distributed on torrent), but most of the results contained some lousy movie about teenage vampires.
  But that's not what I was suggesting. The real problem is that these rules apply recursively, making a page containing a link to illegal material illegal, then making everything linking to that page illegal etc., and in the end the whole Internet becomes guilty. Just look at the times Google has been accused with piracy, and how extensively they have to censor search results just to evade lawsuits. They are a neutral search engine operating in good faith but they still get legal threats from time to time. And a party that links to a site that tracks torrents for it's users some of which link to infringing material is even more indirect.
  In any case there is exactly one person committing infringement, the one who uploaded the infringing material. Holding the whole Internet responsible for the actions of one is unjust.
  
  If the latter, I would argue it is similar to rich individuals or companies evading tax; if they find a loophole in the current laws then the government moves to close it, because their end goal is for people and corporations to pay their 'fair share' of tax. Similarly here, the end goal is to remove access to pirated content.
  Are you suggesting that tracker/storage sites upload infringing materials themselves and claim it wasn't them? Those are certainly accusations that rightsholders like to make, for example it's one of the things they accuse Megaupload with. But even if the connections can't be proven (and it's much easier to prove that provided that they have access to all their data), the fines for such an act are far too big for anyone to volunteer as a strawman. Warez sites tend to be shut down quickly and firmly, but that is another business model.
13. Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work. by silentcoder · 2012-04-04 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  For that matter. Running a proxy is not comparable to a link. Your argument may apply to the legality of piratebay but that is not what''s at stake here. What's at stake is people running proxies which simply serve up what users request.
  The organization in this case is attempting to demand those proxies be modified to block a site they dislike. That's on a whole other level.
  It's more like saying "The murderer got to the victim's house by using a toll road. Let's threaten to sue the toll company if they don't shut down the turn-pike that connects to the main road of out of the murderer's neighbourhood."
  And that is a valid analogy:
  1) The toll road, like the proxy providers, are a privately run public service which cannot reasonably be expected to police the destinations of everyone who travels via it.
  2) Shutting down access to the neighbourhood of the murderer would also deny access to everybody else in the neighbourhood who committed no crime. Even if this is a high-crime neighbourhood (not really a fait a compli in this case) some citizens are still innocent and do not deserved to be cut off from the rest of the world. Hell even criminals have a right to freedom of speech and movement until convicted. There are many legal torrents on piratebay, which have every right to exist while the copyright regime is effectively trying to force the road operators from allowing them to drive (because some of them are going to commit crimes at their destination)
  Do you see how flimsy the attack on proxies are ?
  Morally it gets even worse if you go beyond the limits of the analogy. Various forms of proxy (such as ToR) are crucial to protecting the lives and identities of dissidents in autocratic states - efforts like these throw that baby out with the bathwater too.
  I'd say if it's a choice between a dissident massacre in Iran or a few copyright violations in Amsterdam most people would view the latter as the lesser of two evils.
  Since the technology under debate here is crucial to the former and merely incidental to the latter, there is absolutely NO grounds to support any action against it.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
14. Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work. by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-04-04 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  When linking is a crime then everyone becomes a criminal.
  And thus become far more compliant and controllable. That is the long game of corporate fascist states: threaten troublemakers with exposing everything they've done as they foolishly assumed they had a real right to privacy. He who is without sin, feet of clay, and all that rot.
15. Re:Oh, yeah, that'll work. by speculatrix · 2012-04-09 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  I did a lot of work with embedded processors, so I guess I should use port 8051
Yar! by MonsterTrimble · 2012-04-04 03:11 · Score: 5, Funny

'The Pirateparty disputes your claim and will not comply with your request.'
To quote Capt Barbossa:
I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Means "no".

--
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
1. Re:Yar! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  'The Pirateparty disputes your claim and will not comply with your request.'
  To quote Capt Barbossa:
  I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Means "no".
  I was thinking that exact same thing as I was reading this! Go Pirateparty!
2. Re:Yar! by mrbester · 2012-04-04 03:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "I refer you to the response given in Arkell vs. Pressdram." Also means "no".
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 03:12 · Score: 3, Funny

Dirk Poot. Haw haw
1. Re:LOL by gabereiser · 2012-04-04 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  Thought the same thing... had my first audible chuckle of the day...
2. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  Not being EFL, I don't ge the joke. All I know is that "Poot" in Dutch means "leg" (as in of a chair, table or animal) or "fag" as in a derogatory term for homosexuals.
3. Re:LOL by Per+Wigren · 2012-04-04 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Feelyat!
  
  --
  My other account has a 3-digit UID.
4. Re:LOL by Scarletdown · 2012-04-04 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Not being EFL, I don't ge the joke. All I know is that "Poot" in Dutch means "leg" (as in of a chair, table or animal) or "fag" as in a derogatory term for homosexuals.
  It's yet another synonym for fart.
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
5. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  Poot is American English slang for "fart".
Re:SHOUTING by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 03:21 · Score: 0

I thought Netcraft did?
Watch out for that self-righteous zealousness. by outsider007 · 2012-04-04 03:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

You might get some on you.

--
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Government wants to own the Internet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 03:22 · Score: 0

When the Government has full control of the Internet, it won't be the Internet anymore. It will be the GovernmentNet.
1. Re:Government wants to own the Internet by Mister+Whirly · 2012-04-04 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Um, not sure if you haven't read up on history, but the "big bad government" is who created the internet.
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
If they take down one proxy, 10 other will show up by Hentes · 2012-04-04 03:28 · Score: 1

Clearly showing how ridiculous the idea of internet censorship is.
Both parties are wrong by bytesex · 2012-04-04 03:30 · Score: 2

Both parties can be said to be 'In their self-righteous zealousness be bringing substantial damage to the free and open Internet.'

--
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
1. Re:Both parties are wrong by Thing+1 · 2012-04-04 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Not so sure; one quote about the Internet is that it "interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." Granted, applying this to their behavior to say that they are strengthening the (future) Internet is very close to the broken window fallacy, so I might just have to leave this post half-
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Brein logo... by daid303 · 2012-04-04 03:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

Googling for the brein logo you get this:
http://3voor12.vpro.nl/.imaging/stk/3voor12/zoom/media/3voor12/nieuws/redactie/2009/July/42299862/original/42299862.jpeg
It's just asking for a nazi reference with that red background. (And I just called godwin law on my own post...)
1. Re:Brein logo... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  Pathetic whiney scumsacks they certainly are at BREIN but i don't think hitler still owns the patent on red backgrounds.
2. Re:Brein logo... by cpu6502 · 2012-04-04 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Red == socialist in my book (Socialist Union in Russia, Socialist government in China). Maybe BREIN, RIAA, and others are looking for some socialist-style bailouts and protectionism for their obsolete industries.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
3. Re:Brein logo... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  A bit off-topic, but it always amuses me that red is also the color of the Republican party.
4. Re:Brein logo... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  Dems are socialists. Reps are fascists. You're both fucked in the head and watching you slap each other silly is getting pathetic.
5. Re:Brein logo... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sorry, where did I say I support Democrats? I'm simply pointing out that there is humor in the fact that Red == Republican. I am unaware of what else Blue could refer to, but even if I were, cpu6502 made no mention of that color, so why would I?
Re:If they take down one proxy, 10 other will show by the_pace · 2012-04-04 03:46 · Score: 0

Censorship is for the 99%, not the 1% (on geek scale).
TFA is bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 03:56 · Score: 5, Informative

BRAIN is not part of the government, they only pretend to, and they can't order anyone anything.
Another quite famous proxy to TPB.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 04:26 · Score: 1

.. is Google:
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=es&twu=1&u=http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7078610/Laid_%28abc_TV_serie
1. Re:Another quite famous proxy to TPB.. by speculatrix · 2012-04-09 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  mod parent up!
Well, actually... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 06:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

BREIN is not a part of government, it is a foundation which lobbies for big media.
However, a recent lawsuit determined that they can have some specifiek ISP's (Ziggo and XS4ALL) to block any and all URL's they seem fit. Think about it, the judge actually gave them the power to have _any_ URL they submit blocked at those providers. I'll repeat for emphasis, as the absurdity demands it: THEY CAN HAVE ANY URL BLOCKED, NO RECOURSE POSSIBLE.
And _that_ is what the Pirate Party is standing up against.
1. Re:Well, actually... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  This is currently being appealed by those providers, including mine, Ziggo. However, until a verdict is reached, they have to keep blocking those URLs. I've been unable to access the Pirate Bay for a few months now. When I try, I get a message from my ISP saying they disagree with the blocking, but have to keep blocking it until a verdict is reached.
  No other sites are currently blocked to my knowledge. I believe the block is merely implemented at DNS level.
2. Re:Well, actually... by Ihmhi · 2012-04-04 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  When an appeal is in process for something like this, doesn't it usually put a stay on any orders given by the previous judge?
  Like, if a judge ordered your house seized but you had an appeal going through, your house presumably wouldn't be seized until your appeals are exhausted or you win...
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:Wrong tree... by scsirob · 2012-04-04 07:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

So BREIN are clearly barking up the wrong tree. The verdict was handed to Ziggo and XS4ALL, not the Piratenpartij. If anyone has to block anything, it will be Ziggo and XS4ALL, when BREIN hands them the URL and/or IP address of that particular proxy. Nowhere in the verdict does BREIN get the right to push arbitrary sites around, or to hand out orders of any kind.
Oh, by the way, if BREIN does have that IP address blocked, they automatically commit political censorship, which by itself is enough to drag BREIN into court.

--
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Change name request by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-04 22:15 · Score: 0

Maybe they should rename BREIN (brain) to LOBOTOMY.
Re:SHOUTING by Dwonis · 2012-04-07 06:15 · Score: 1

Too soon.
Re:Wrong tree... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-15 04:50 · Score: 0

That would be an interesting court case. There would be two questions which need to be answered in that case:
1) Where does going after your right stop and censorship start?
2) What constitutes aiding in copyright infringement (which is simply an offense in the Netherlands, not a crime).
Personally I believe BREIN is engaging in harassment using the legal system (and this is a crime in the Netherlands). That is to be expected of an organization representing an aged industry.
While artists deserve to be rewarded for their work, that reward should be reasonable and honestly given. The internet is something relatively new and is designed to distribute information freely and efficiently. That means that industries which base their income on the control of information have to die off.
What does this mean? Well, the current centralized media industry is dieing due to the internet. They have to go back to their roots (and make a lot less money) and actually help the artists make a buck. This is something they do not like and thus they are going to fight to maintain their income stream. They are fighting the internet now... it's either the internet or large media companies now.