Judge Rules Takedown of Pirate Party General Proxy Illegal

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Rules Takedown of Pirate Party General Proxy Illegal

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @12:45AM from the i'll-get-you-next-time-poot! dept.

CAPSLOCK2000 writes "The Dutch Pirate Party (PPNL) just won a court-case against BREIN. Last week BREIN got a court to issue an emergency order to take down a reverse-proxy to The Pirate Bay. The next day BREIN claimed the court order also included a generic proxy also ran by PPNL and any other service that might lead to TPB (aka hyperlinks). PPNL responded with an emergency lawsuit of their own, asking for a literal interpretation of the verdict instead of BREIN's broad reading. The judge acknowledged the narrow interpretation of the verdict. proxy.piratenpartij.nl stays up and tpb.piratenpartij.nl now sports a list of other ways to reach The Pirate Bay. Due to the Streisand effect this list has grown to a considerable length. Noteworthy is that The Pirate Party got favorable verdict in a single day, a first in Dutch law." Full verdict (in Dutch). This is only a temporary order by the judge to keep the general-purpose proxy run by the Pirate Party and the list of alternative proxies to the Pirate Bay online. A full case hearing is expected on April 24th.

74 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Is there more to say? by KGIII · 2012-04-18 00:47 · Score: 4, Informative

I think it is enough to say, "Good."

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
1. Re:Is there more to say? by Spad · 2012-04-18 00:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Oh I agree, but for the time being we just have to put up with BREIN.
2. Re:Is there more to say? by MoonBuggy · 2012-04-18 02:15 · Score: 2
  
  My first thought was actually "Where does one draw the line?". So the people seeding the torrents are legally in the wrong by most standards - I have significant issues with current copyright law, but that's the way it goes. Apparently, The Pirate Bay are also in the wrong for providing the magnet links that facilitate this; more dubious, to my mind, but that seems to be the opinion of the Dutch courts. And The Pirate Party are also apparently in the wrong for actively circumventing the block, but not for providing instructions on how to circumvent it? How many levels of pointless obfuscation do we need before it's all clean and legal again?
3. Re:Is there more to say? by i+kan+reed · 2012-04-18 02:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How about we hold people liable when we discover they actually violate a particular copyright, rather than trying to extent tort coverage to criminal concepts like "aiding and abetting". Seriously.
4. Re:Is there more to say? by AngryDeuce · 2012-04-18 02:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Of all the times to be out of mod points...
  The world will be a better place when the MAFIAA is gone. They're a relic from a time when an artist required a middleman to get their art to the masses, and internet has made them largely unnecessary.
  I have as much sympathy for them as the first automobile owners had for the harrier. It's progress, baby...
5. Re:Is there more to say? by Safety+Cap · 2012-04-18 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Why would an educated person think this kind of garbage is good?
  Argument from incredulity appears to not apply here, as you don't fall into that group. Can we get a ruling from the jury?
  
  --
  Yeah, right.
6. Re:Is there more to say? by icebraining · 2012-04-18 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Tort is a common law concept. Does it even apply to the Netherlands?
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
7. Re:Is there more to say? by jamstar7 · 2012-04-18 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, and this is an important victory over BREIN and the rest of teh MAFIAAs. Keep up the good work, Holland!!
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
8. Re:Is there more to say? by GreatBunzinni · 2012-04-18 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  How about we hold people liable when we discover they actually violate a particular copyright, rather than trying to extent tort coverage to criminal concepts like "aiding and abetting". Seriously.
  Because in some jurisdictions, which at least until a few years ago consist of the entire world except the US and a hand full of puppet states, distributing a copyrighted work for personal use without the copyright holder's authorization is perfectly legal, and it is so very legal to the point that it is even explicitly authorized in the copyright code. So, these copyright trolls can't touch the people covered by those jurisdictions, and hence they are free to distribute any copyrighted work as they see fit.
  yet, in some cases the distribution channels are still covered by a jurisdiction which they can corrupt. So, as they can't touch the end user, they do try to eliminate the distribution channel. It's cheaper that way, more cost-effective in terms of legal costs and, more importantly, they eliminate any potential competitor that may enter the media distribution business. If there is any doubt in that then just look how the US thugs are handling the megaupload fiasco, and notice how they only managed to pull that mafia-inspired racketeering stunt once kim dotcom was investing in a media distribution business backed-up by a string of A-list artists.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
9. Re:Is there more to say? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  It's not a victory at all, as the hearing is scheduled for next week. For this to be a victory, half-a-BREIN should have been fined for its abuse of the previous court order.
  They received an ex-parte injunction against a political movement and then tried to expand on that ruling by interpreting it widely. The judge merely told them that the injunction didn't reach beyond its letter. Instead, the judge should have voided the injunction granted earlier.
10. Re:Is there more to say? by AliasMarlowe · 2012-04-18 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  These people are nothing but anti-civilization types. Why would anyone educated person think this kind of garbage is good?
  Agreed, civilization would be improved by the absence of BREIN and its ilk. I suspect that most educated persons look forward to that happy day, and hope it will arrive soon.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
11. Re:Is there more to say? by QuasiSteve · 2012-04-18 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  How about we hold people liable when we discover they actually violate a particular copyright
  Because then there will still be outrage? Or did we already forget about Capitol v. Thomas?
  She was actually being held liable.
  But how dare the big companies come down on an individual, whose only 'crime' was to promote their dreck by sharing it with others?
  And how dare they file for millions, thousands, or even hundreds when that dreck costs $0.99 a piece in the iTunes store, and in reality the real damages are negligible!
  How dare they hold her liable for anything more than a token amount of $1?
  Let's be honest, no matter which way the copyright holders will try to actually enforce their copyright, they're just going to get flack for it.
  I even argued that copyright should be done away with (see earlier comment) and instead distribution rights should be improved and more thoroughly enforced, and I still believe that.
  But distribution is what the problem in that case is (although a large part of that is whether 'making available' constitutes 'distribution' - i.e. whether my telling you that I have product X available makes me a distributor of product X, even if you decline the offer - for the purposes of jury instruction), so it wouldn't help and people would still cry foul.
12. Re:Is there more to say? by WanQiaoYi · 2012-04-18 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Good indeed
13. Re:Is there more to say? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  criminal concepts like "aiding and abetting"
  
  Because a tort requires the aggrieved owner to collect evidence and pay court fees. A criminal charge means those costs are borne by the state.
  This is one of the problems of an intellectual property industry like the USA has: The penny-ante businesses must have intrinsic protection of their assets provided by the state.
Piracy is fast becoming a civic duty by mykos · 2012-04-18 00:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Clearly the anti-piracy outfits have no respect for the law; perhaps people should start doing what they can to quit funding them.
1. Re:Piracy is fast becoming a civic duty by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  Can we apply this to your use of air?
2. Re:Piracy is fast becoming a civic duty by MisterMidi · 2012-04-18 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  If I record an album with my own music I should be able to do what I want with it, including giving it away for free, without having to pay the MAFIAA. As long as that's virtually impossible and they continue to screw over not only the consumers, but also the vast majority of bands and artists, they're not getting a dime from me and I'll pirate everything (note: downloading is still legal here in the Netherlands.) I don't pirate because I can't afford to buy it, or because I want things for free. I pirate because it's the right thing to do. The sooner the MAFIAA dies the better, for all of us, consumers and artists.
3. Re:Piracy is fast becoming a civic duty by NeverSuchBefore · 2012-04-18 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  Pirating is illegal.
  Law isn't always right. Also, illegal where?
  
  It is wrong.
  In your opinion.
  
  There is no justification
  In your opinion.
  
  for taking
  If "taking" is defined as "copying," that fits.
4. Re:Piracy is fast becoming a civic duty by sociocapitalist · 2012-04-18 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry but that strikes me as just more rationalization to be able to take what you want without paying for it. You can give your own music (or anything else) away for free and no one can stop you. You can even sell it and no one can stop you from doing that either.
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
5. Re:Piracy is fast becoming a civic duty by sociocapitalist · 2012-04-18 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  Pirating is illegal.
  Law isn't always right. Also, illegal where?
  Do you need law to tell you what is right? Is taking something from someone else just because you can right?
  
  It is wrong.
  In your opinion.
  Certainly
  
  There is no justification
  In your opinion.
  
  for taking
  If "taking" is defined as "copying," that fits.
  So I can take pictures of you and your family and you wouldn't mind what I do with them then? Certainly that's just copying.
  Should all of the research and development into everything be unprotected then, as copying the results is only copying?
  What do you do for work? Would you mind if someone took the output of your work and gave it away for free?
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
6. Re:Piracy is fast becoming a civic duty by NeverSuchBefore · 2012-04-18 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  Do you need law to tell you what is right? Is taking something from someone else just because you can right?
  What? You're the one who mentioning that it was illegal, not me. You're the one who brought up laws.
  
  So I can take pictures of you and your family and you wouldn't mind what I do with them then? Certainly that's just copying.
  As soon as I objected to something you said, you instantly assumed that I was anti-copyright. I don't have to be anti-copyright to disagree with some of the things you say, you know. I don't even have to be anti-copyright to say it's, in fact, copying.
  If you can manage to get the pictures, yes. Don't expect me to make that easy for you, though.
  
  Should all of the research and development into everything be unprotected then, as copying the results is only copying?
  Sure.
  
  What do you do for work? Would you mind if someone took the output of your work and gave it away for free?
  Don't know how that would be possible.
7. Re:Piracy is fast becoming a civic duty by MisterMidi · 2012-04-18 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I can give away my music for free. But why the hell should I pay the MAFIAA for that? I think you're the one rationalizing and justifying what they're doing. Try it for yourself: record an album and then try to get CD's replicated and printed by a professional service without paying the MAFIAA. Maybe it's possible in the US, but not here in NL last time I checked. Or sell your album as a small artist and try to get money back from them. It's not possible because as a small artist, you'll never reach the threshold. Even if you're lucky enough to reach the threshold, it's just some change they'll give you. I think you have no idea how much they're screwing us, both artists and consumers.
  As I said, it's not that I want to take everything without paying. I do support bands by buying merchandise from them directly because I know my money will go to them, I just refuse to support the MAFIAA.
Har! Har! by stevegee58 · 2012-04-18 00:52 · Score: 1

I downloaded them all and uploaded none!
German regional elections:Piratenpartei waehlen :) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 00:58 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Schleswig-Holstein: 6. Mai
North Rhine-Westphalia: 13.Mai !!!!
Not piracy by drinkypoo · 2012-04-18 00:58 · Score: 1

But the creation and distribution of media with a Creative Commons (or similar) license.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1. Re:Not piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 02:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Now see there's the problem. That won't help you. These organisations have been able to buy laws that in a lot of countries demand you pay them even if you are not listed with any of their organisations and wrote the music yourself. It's the corruption that's involved with these companies not just music that's the issue.
2. Re:Not piracy by MisterMidi · 2012-04-18 04:42 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  No kidding. It was impossible for our band to get some demo CDs pressed without paying BUMA/STEMRA (Dutch MAFIAA) rights, even though they were our own works and the CDs weren't commercial. We were told that we could claim when the CDs were sold - which we never did because they were free demos. Even if we would have sold them, there was no way we could get any money back because we wouldn't have reached the threshold. So basically, smaller bands are paying for the MAFIAA and the bigger artists. I say, screw them in every way you can.
The Netherlands is important because... by dryriver · 2012-04-18 00:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Netherlands is an important battleground, because 1) the Dutch are strong believers in individual freedoms and rights, and 2) because what happens in the courts in the Netherlands may affect what happens in other EU Zone courts. The Dutch are usually very liberal/libertarian in their political outlook. Its unlikely that the Dutch Public would ever back the Copyright/IP Lobby politically. Dutch Politicians/Bureaucrats, and perhaps also Dutch Courts, sadly, may be a different beast. The "Legal Right to Protect Intellectual Property" may win over the politicos/bureaucrats/judges. Its going to be interesting to see which way this court battle ultimately swings, and how the Dutch Public will react to the results. I personally can't see the Dutch Public backing the IP lobbyists at all. The country is too freedom-loving by nature for the IP Lobbyists to be able to make much of a dent, politically speaking.

--
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
1. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by RichardDeVries · 2012-04-18 01:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The problem is not whether or not people believe in individual freedoms and rights. The problem is that the consequences of BREIN's actions are hard to explain, while BREIN's motives sound good to the layman (protecting creativity and all that).
  I think the Dutch are spoiled in a way. We grew up knowing that are freedoms were taken care of by politicians, the media and the judicial system. Now that certain freedoms are being questioned, we don't know how to interpret the issues, let alone how to respond to them.
  
  --
  Error 001
  Security Scan and Virus Detection do not work with your operating system.
2. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by Hatta · 2012-04-18 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  The country is too freedom-loving by nature...
  That sounds awfully familiar somehow.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
3. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by hvm2hvm · 2012-04-18 01:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Being freedom-loving and pretending to be freedom-loving while actually being apathetic/lazy are two different things.
  
  --
  ics
4. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by Ash-Fox · 2012-04-18 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  1) the Dutch are strong believers in individual freedoms and rights
  Same with the USA.
  
  2) because what happens in the courts in the Netherlands may affect what happens in other EU Zone courts.
  True for the USA, but not for the Netherlands. The Netherlands have little power over the non-democratic elected officials of the European Union government (in other words, the peoples of Europe have no power to elect the ones with power in the EU government), For this reason, the politics in Netherlands is unlikely to have much of an impact on future EU legislation that will end up overruling any actions the Dutch take to the contrary of the EU's legislations.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
5. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 01:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  1) the Dutch are strong believers in individual freedoms and rights
  Same with the USA.
  You think so? TSA, Guantanamo, over a decade of poorly-justified wars, attempts to stigmatize abortion through law, the steady lowering of the maximum legal BAC, the so-called "war on drugs", the extremely large prison population including the rise of a for-profit industry with the purpose of imprisoning minors, metal detectors in schools, the rise of the surveillance state, the growing wealth imbalance aided by law, on and on... we claim to love individual rights, but I would not want to have to defend our actions of the last decade or so in a court of my peers. It would be easy to defend the statements that the US loves business and the US loves money, though; I think freedom is in third place here, at best.
6. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  Despite that, the country still enacted into law regulation that meant that users buying cdroms to store their linux distros were giving money to the music companies. So it's not all pure.
7. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by pahles · 2012-04-18 02:35 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is that the consequences of BREIN's actions are hard to explain, while BREIN's motives sound good to the layman (protecting creativity and all that).
  Excuse me? The layman in the Netherlands thinks BREIN are a pain in the ***, shutting down websites, proxies, making it difficult to legally (according to Dutch law) download music and movies. So, which motives do you have in mind?
  
  --
  Sig?
8. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by Ash-Fox · 2012-04-18 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  You think so?
  Absolutely.
  
  TSA, Guantanamo, over a decade of poorly-justified wars, attempts to stigmatize abortion through law, the steady lowering of the maximum legal BAC, the so-called "war on drugs", the extremely large prison population including the rise of a for-profit industry with the purpose of imprisoning minors, metal detectors in schools, the rise of the surveillance state, the growing wealth imbalance aided by law, on and on... we claim to love individual rights, but I would not want to have to defend our actions of the last decade or so in a court of my peers.
  
  While these issues are relevant to "individual freedoms and right", this has little to do with being "strong believers in individual freedoms and rights". Belief does not dictate reality.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
9. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by RichardDeVries · 2012-04-18 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  BREIN's stated mission:
  
  The BREIN foundation is the joint anti-piracy program of authors, artists, publishers, producers and distributors of music, film, games, interactive software and books; A unique bundling of forces of the entire entertainment industry in the fight against Intellectual Property theft.
  may not be what you or I agree with, but to many people it sounds like a reasonable idea.
  In my experience the attempts to shut down filesharing sites are seen as annoying and as something that makes it a bit harder to get music and movies. The point that shutting down websites is a threat to the freedom of speech is lost on most people. In fact, the whole concept of freedom of speech is something many don't fully understand.
  
  --
  Error 001
  Security Scan and Virus Detection do not work with your operating system.
10. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by AnalogDiehard · 2012-04-18 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Read case history of $cientology triying to bully the dutch into submitting their freedoms and rights when they publically posted forbidden Co$ doctrine. Co$ got their ass handed to them by the dutch courts.
  
  --
  Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
11. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by xenobyte · 2012-04-18 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  BREIN's stated mission:
  
  The BREIN foundation is the joint anti-piracy program of authors, artists, publishers, producers and distributors of music, film, games, interactive software and books; A unique bundling of forces of the entire entertainment industry in the fight against Intellectual Property theft.
  Again? - They STILL try to make filesharing into stealing and theft?
  That unique 'bundling of forces' sure don't know much about the law it seems. Okay, once more for the daft and retarded: Stealing and theft refers to the illegal transfer of possession of an item or resource. It is characterized as as a transfer, i.e. someone (the victim) loses the item or resource as the thief gains it.
  If you make a copy of the Mona Lisa, the Louvre doesn't end up with a empty space on its wall, and whatever you do with that copy can result in a number of possible criminal charges being brought against you, but stealing the painting is NOT one of them. After all, it's still there - in the Louvre.
  Now some might argue that there's in indirect loss when you make a copy of a movie for instance. Because the legal way of getting a copy would be to pay for it, and since you don't pay, there's a loss. Now, there's two problems with that; first assuming that the recipient of the copy would have paid for it if the free copy wasn't available. That's not true at all, and it might be due to both unwillingness and inability to pay. Second, we quite often see filesharing of materials not available for purchase (as-yet unreleased), and it's absurd to claim a loss when no profit were possible.
  
  --
  "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
12. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by hey_popey · 2012-04-18 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  True for the USA, but not for the Netherlands. The Netherlands have little power over the non-democratic elected officials of the European Union government (in other words, the peoples of Europe have no power to elect the ones with power in the EU government)
  - The European Parliament has one of the most democratic elections I can think of: proportional and with a large number of Europe-wide parties.
  - Local state legislation has an influence on the long term on the European people and the European governance, even if it does not apply to the other member states (and in some cases, fortunately).
13. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  .."over a decade" of poorly-justified wars?
  The US started trying to implement its policies on other countries via war in 1798 (the "Quasi-War", q.v. the role of the Marines in the Dominican Republic at that time) and has been continuously active in doing so since. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations )
  Our own textbooks given to children admit the Spanish-American war was founded on a lie. Vietnam was triggered by Henry Kissinger telling tales to the South Vietnamese, purposely damaging the Paris peace talks to give the next administration an opportunity to take credit. This backfired, of course...
  Check out that timeline, again: We've had a few one-year dots where we've had peace, but never anything longer since the founding of the country, and a great many of those were the result of giving ourselves a poorly-made excuse to invade someone else.
  I love my country, but I'm not going to fool myself into thinking we're always the white knights coming to someone's rescue - we've done a great number of shitty things.
14. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by Dialecticus · 2012-04-18 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  It would be easy to defend the statements that the US loves business and the US loves money, though; I think freedom is in third place here, at best.
  I'd say it's at least fourth place; you forgot safety.
15. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by Ash-Fox · 2012-04-18 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  - The European Parliament has one of the most democratic elections I can think of: proportional and with a large number of Europe-wide parties.
  Feel free to take your argument to Nigel Farage
  
  - Local state legislation has an influence on the long term on the European people and the European governance, even if it does not apply to the other member states (and in some cases, fortunately).
  If that was true, the common fisheries policy wouldn't be an issue repeatedly while member states had few issues without the common fisheries policy. And that's just one of the major issues.
  But, maybe you say this issue is kind of small. So, let's take an even bigger issue. What about member states being able to devalue themselves to recoup from economic crisis issues (a recent example of this exact scenario working working would be Iceland)... Greece prior to EU legislation could do this, when it's government attempted to do so under the EU, the EU removed the government power of Greece and replaced it with a puppet - The country that created democracy. I'm sorry, but the EU government will not take into account the "Local state legislation has an influence on the long term on the European people" as they have overruled them by determining that borrowing more money and more money to save a country from economic crisis caused by 'borrowing' instead of letting them devalue.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
16. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by marsu_k · 2012-04-18 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  What about member states being able to devalue themselves to recoup from economic crisis issues (a recent example of this exact scenario working working would be Iceland)... Greece prior to EU legislation could do this, when it's government attempted to do so under the EU, the EU removed the government power of Greece and replaced it with a puppet - The country that created democracy.
  They would have been free to do so, had they not joined the moneytary union (via outright deception and forgery, might I add). As it is, I'm all for giving them the boot from the Euro, hell the union even; IMHO we should limit the EU to the Alps as it seems corruption and bad finances are rampant everywhere south from there. But "unjoining" the Euro seems to be difficult, so as they themselves put them in the mess they are in, and they seem to be perfectly incapable of handling the situation themselves, then by all means they should be forced to do so from the outside. There's a saying that would be fitting, but as my English is not native I can't recall the exact wording. It involved reaping and sowing anyhow.
17. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by Ash-Fox · 2012-04-18 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  They would have been free to do so, had they not joined the moneytary union (via outright deception and forgery, might I add).
  Which the EU knew about prior to approving it and chose to ignore the auditors. The EU further refuses to give them permission to change currency to balance themselves out as well.
  
  As it is, I'm all for giving them the boot from the Euro, hell the union even; IMHO we should limit the EU to the Alps as it seems corruption and bad finances are rampant everywhere south from there. But "unjoining" the Euro seems to be difficult
  You can't unjoin the Euro without permission from the EU, when the government attempted to correct the issue themselves, the EU saw to it to replace their democratically voted person power for people who were not.
  Sadly, what we think or want has no relevance. It doesn't matter what party I vote for in my country, and it probably won't matter for the party you vote for in your country.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
18. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by marsu_k · 2012-04-18 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, what we think or want has no relevance. It doesn't matter what party I vote for in my country, and it probably won't matter for the party you vote for in your country.
  Also sadly, I have to concur. Having said that, I'll be voting for the pirates in the next MEP elections - they don't stand a chance currently in the national elections, but hopefully they'll be able to score a seat or two in Brussels. While the party here is also filled with some libertarian loonies I find very hard to tolerate, they seem to be the only party that has any grasp on things digital, which is "relevant to my interests".
19. Re:The Netherlands is important because... by NeverSuchBefore · 2012-04-18 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  If you make a copy of the Mona Lisa, the Louvre doesn't end up with a empty space on its wall, and whatever you do with that copy can result in a number of possible criminal charges being brought against you, but stealing the painting is NOT one of them. After all, it's still there - in the Louvre.
  You stole its... uh... uniqueness? No, wait, you would need to take that for yourself in order for it to truly be called stealing, and you can't steal uniqueness. Uh... I give up.
  It's theft because I said so! The debate is over. I won.
Secret fan by geekmux · 2012-04-18 01:02 · Score: 2

"This is only a temporary order by the judge to keep the general-purpose proxy run by the Pirate Party and the list of alternative proxies to the Pirate Bay online.
Sounds like somebody is a fan of torrents...
1. Re:Secret fan by funwithBSD · 2012-04-18 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yeah, they did not want to miss the latest episode of Dowton Abbey, now did they?
  
  --
  Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
2. Re:Secret fan by jamstar7 · 2012-04-18 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  CORRIE, baby, Corrie! From what I hear, Coronation Street's numbers outweigh Downton Abbey.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
So there's only copyright law? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 01:08 · Score: 1

Or is it that copyright law is merely one small segment of law?
How about this: the copyright owners have, by their abuse of the quid-pro-quo of copy right law when it comes to paying their part of the bargain, have shown their disregard for the law. Your snide is mis-aimed
Wait a second.. by DerCed · 2012-04-18 01:12 · Score: 1

Wait a second..
Summary says: "The Dutch Pirate Party (PPNL) just won a court-case against BREIN"
Article says: ".. a temporary court order has been issued. As of now, with the trial pending, the Pirate Party can continue to operate the proxy site."
So the court-case is not won at all and the summary is wrong?
1. Re:Wait a second.. by Calydor · 2012-04-18 01:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It may be more accurate to say they won this battle, but the war is not over yet.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
2. Re:Wait a second.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  True enough, but the entirety of this legal engagement is more analogous to a campaign than a war. The war isn't over until every man, woman, and child is forced to pay $X for every single piece of drek the entertainment corporations put out, or the abolition of all penalties for personal, not-for-profit sharing of copyrighted works.
3. Re:Wait a second.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  The pirate party was forced to shut down a direct proxy, or so called 'reverse proxy', to TPB website.
  They replaced it by a list of open proxies, including url's, and including their own general open proxy.
  BREIN, the dutch private organisation, ordered to take the list of URL's and the general proxy down too, with the court order at hand, threatening to collect the $10.000 daily ransom if the PP would not obey.
  The PP consequently argued that this was not in line with the court order, and that only their direct reverse proxy was addressed. Today, a dutch judge confirmed this, and delayed any other judgements until april 24.
  Concluding: all the judge said was that BREIN -with a court order at hand- did not have a carte blanche in taking down websites and proxies. But, that a judge would review the situation soon, leaving the situation untouched for now.
Legality of generic proxies by Hentes · 2012-04-18 01:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

If generic proxies are considered illegal, what's the next step? Outlawing Tor? Clearly shows that there is no middle ground between free speech and full censorship on the net: if you wan't to effectively censor a content, you have to become an authoritarian power yourself.
1. Re:Legality of generic proxies by CAPSLOCK2000 · 2012-04-18 01:42 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Allready happening. A few weeks ago the Dutch media were portraying TOR as the new Sodom & Gomorra of the Internet. Questions have been asked in parliament about blocking TOR. Ofcourse the media only focus on the downsides of having a truly anonymous network and not on the reasons of building such a network in the first place.
2. Re:Legality of generic proxies by TheDarkMaster · 2012-04-18 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect that if it depends from the *AAs (MPAA, RIAA, etc), anything that is not under total and complete control of them will be "illegal".
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
3. Re:Legality of generic proxies by Shagg · 2012-04-18 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  If it was up to the RIAA/MPAA they would outlaw the internet.
  
  --
  Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
so when we say by nimbius · 2012-04-18 01:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

"the land of the free and the home of the brave" we really mean, the Netherlands, right? i mean first the anders attack which by all indications the entire populous outright refused to be intimidated by at all. Now we have the government recognizing a body of highly controversial individuals and their right to remain independently available on the internet, despite what i can only imagine is some very overt pressure from the United States State Department and its notorious foreign cables.
in stark contrast as an american, i actually feel ashamed to stand up for the national anthem. secret prisons, targeted killings, Immigrations and customs randomly kicking websites off the internet they dont like. We should probably pack in the statue of liberty at this point too; the half-million undocumented immigrants that serve as our permanent slave-class certainly havent benefitted as tired huddled masses.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:so when we say by BorgDrone · 2012-04-18 01:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "the land of the free and the home of the brave" we really mean, the Netherlands, right? i mean first the anders attack which by all indications the entire populous outright refused to be intimidated by at all.
  
  You know the whole Anders Breivik thing happened in Norway, not the Netherlands; right ?
2. Re:so when we say by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 01:45 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Norway is the capital of the Netherlands, silly.
3. Re:so when we say by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit! Narnia is a fictional land!
4. Re:so when we say by dutchwhizzman · 2012-04-18 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  No it isn't you ignoramus, it's the capital of Paris!
  
  --
  I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
5. Re:so when we say by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  Methinks you are a bit confused, dear sir. Netherlands != Norway.
  And the last time political murder was committed in the Netherlands, half of society went apeshit and demanded the execution of the other half of society.
  There might be some enlightened minds in NL, but political discussions are being led&fed by the lowest common denominator here... NL has turned into a bigoted, racist, islamophobe nation of disgruntled egotists over the last decade.
Generic proxy wasn't considered yet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 01:38 · Score: 0

The judge basically said that since the earlier ruling against PPNL was made without hearing PPNL (it was a preliminary ruling), there was no grounds to make it into a general ruling.
A better headline would've been "Judge rules ban of generic Pirate Party Proxy does not follow from earlier summary judgment banning a specific proxy."
But that's somewhat longish.
At any rate: to be continued, for sure. And kid yourselves not: the judge did not OK the proxy. He only clarified that the generic proxy does not fall under the provisions prohibiting the PPNL's proxy to TPB.
Not really by dutchwhizzman · 2012-04-18 02:28 · Score: 1

I believe this judge has been giving verdict in favor of BREIN in the past.

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
i dont think they understand the situation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 03:14 · Score: 0

this is a total catastrophe for the rights company. when you push your opponent to politics, and the opponent is bigger, MUCH BIGGEST, you will lose in so many levels, that you pant is the last to worry about.
the pirate bay is here to stay. for a hundred years.
1. Re:i dont think they understand the situation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-18 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  opps
Dinosaurs by Safety+Cap · 2012-04-18 03:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Gnash and roar loudly as they sink into the tar pits.
They may hurt teh interwebs on their way down, but their efforts are futile; culture will never again be produced by the few and consumed only by everyone else.
(BTW, Lessig has a great Ted Talk about how everyone is a content producer now.)
Perhaps the MAFIAA think they can turn back the clock because they suffer from Dunning-Kruger? Either way, they need to die and die soon so the rest of us can get on with making badass remixes and fanfic.

--
Yeah, right.
1. Re:Dinosaurs by Requiem18th · 2012-04-18 10:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Or not, I think we are at a breaking point in history where it could go either way.
  On the one hand, more and more alternative sources of content have arisen. People spend a lot of their time doing things other than watching movies and television. Social media and user generated content is growing strong, and together with that, advances in technology are making encrypted darknets more and more feasible. Piracy is ubiquitous in the third world and the MAFIAA and RIAA are almost uniformly hated by everyone who knows who they are and what they do, except the people who directly benefit from them. The rejection of SOPA/PIPA marked an historical event where a huge mass of people aligned to make an International protest that effectively stopped a horrible set of laws from being enacted.
  However, modern versions of Windows, as well as Android and iOS are getting increasingly draconian. We now have hardware that can't dual boot and extensive DRM support in both software and hardware. Videogame consoles are becoming just encrypted hard drives where "content" is rented in smaller and smaller pieces to milk as much possible from the gamers. Each day more and more people are surrendering more of their live to "the cloud" and the cloud is getting more and more aggressive about what it can do with your information. It is quite possible that we are heading to a new dark age where all computers are nothing but telescreens out of the control of their users. Sure, you will always be able to install ubuntu/mint/debian on your devices, if you want to, but if you install the distro of your choice, the DRM won't work, you won't be able to watch the movies youpaid for, your hacked phone won't connect to the VOIP service of your choice, maybe your ISP will deny you service for using a "rouge OS" known to enable piracy and terrorism. Hell, maybe you won't even be able to see your friends' pictures on facebook once facebooks makes a mandatory app for accessing pictures, obviously a security feature against Child Porn and also send them to the printer with cute virtual stickers and BTW it is the *only* way to print them, on your printer which also refuses to work without DRM and can only be used with the factory approved OS.
  It really could go both ways at this point.
  
  --
  But... the future refused to change.
For example by AliasMarlowe · 2012-04-18 06:29 · Score: 1

Because in some jurisdictions, which at least until a few years ago consist of the entire world except the US and a hand full of puppet states, distributing a copyrighted work for personal use without the copyright holder's authorization is perfectly legal, and it is so very legal to the point that it is even explicitly authorized in the copyright code. So, these copyright trolls can't touch the people covered by those jurisdictions, and hence they are free to distribute any copyrighted work as they see fit.
One example being Finland, where a levy is charged on blank media (CDs, DVDs, USB sticks, fixed disks, etc.) to compensate rights holders, with a proportion going to those representing local producers (about 2½ M euro out of 6 M euro collected in 2010). In return, Finns are allowed to legally copy any media they want for personal use, including CDs or DVDs borrowed from public libraries or from friends.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire