Pirate Bay Block Lifted In the Netherlands

swinferno writes "The Dutch ISPs Ziggo and XS4all are no longer required to block access to the websites of The Pirate Bay. [Original in Dutch; here's Google's translation.] This has been decided by the court in The Hague. The blockade has proven to be ineffective. The Dutch anti-piracy organization BREIN will have to reimburse legal costs of €326,000. The internet provider XS4ALL has already started lifting the ban. The website of The Pirate Bay was ordered to be blocked by the two major ISPs in January 2012. Recent studies by Amsterdam University and CentERdata showed that this did not reduce the number of downloads from illegal sources. Many people circumvented the blockade."

Comments

Recent studies

[Thanshin]

Recent studies by Amsterdam University and CentERdata.showed that this did not reduce the number of downloads from illegal sources.

It must be sad to make studies about the obvious.

You go have a beer with friends and they ask you "hey! What are you studying now?"

"I''ve proven that blocking thepiratebay doesn't reduce the number of illegal downloads", you say low voice while fiddling with the peanuts.

And then they look at you as if you were retarded.

Re:Recent studies

[SecurityTheatre]

On the other hand, I commend lawmakers and Judges for looking at the data and making a rational decision.

In many places, the politicians enter the discussion with an idea of how things work. Most of the time, they simply refuse to change their mind, damn the evidence.

I tip my hat to the Dutch judges or politicians who reserve judgement, wait for a peer-reviewed or statistically rigorous assessment from an independent body, and then make a reasonable decision from that.

Just because YOU feel it is obvious, obviously many people don't. Good data is the most appropriate counter to ignorant assumptions.

Re:Recent studies

[telchine]

I tip my hat to the Dutch judges or politicians who reserve judgement

Judges that reserve judgement? That's just ridiculous, not to mention selfish!

If I were a judge I'd hand out judgement freely to anyone who asked for it. Hell, even some who didn't! I'd be dedicated to my job!

Re:Recent studies

[Sique]

Actually, it can be quite revealing to make studies about the obvious. Obvious means that we can easily come up with a good narrative about what we see and what we should expect, but that narrative does not necessarily connect somehow to what really happens. The often cited example is that of Newton's apple, where it is obvious that it's the Earth pulling down the apple, but it's not what really happens.

So yes: Study the obvious thoroughly, and you pretty soon lose any idea about "obviousness".

Re:Recent studies

[Opportunist]

You mean like hijacking a common folk tale and copyrighting it forever?

I think it's sad that a study about this is really necessary.

Re:Recent studies

[c]

And then they look at you as if you were retarded.

... and yet, it's far better than saying "I've been thinking of going into politics".

Re:Recent studies

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the UK, the pirate bay is largely blocked. of couse there are ways around it, but they are technical.

Virtually every casual pirate of years past that i knew, if you ask them now, has no idea how to download the latest release movies off the web now that TPB is effectively blocked in the UK.

Anecdotally, anyway, it would seem that the block is effective. not 100% effective, but somewhat effective. my 'sample' includes people in their 20s and 30s who are otherwise technically savvy. They also dont particularly know where to get the latest mp3s any more.

I dont know what the Netherlands study did or did not do. I also dont know what the dutch exact policy is. But I will tell you this: i'd be very very skeptical of any study which would claim to show that the recent bans in the UK have not reduced the rate of piracy. Unlike you, however, I won't be presumptuous.

Re:Recent studies

[Shalaska]

Exactly, in most cases piracy is a indication of a service problem. It is amazing the number of times I have and have seen others have to pirate a game I already own, just because the DRM-copy fails to function as advertised due to draconian DRM restrictions. Furthermore the pirated copy doesn't require things such as disks in the CD drive which I would rather not have to look for. On the other hand all of the games I have gotten off of Steam, although using Steam's DRM system, I have not had to pirate because their system just works for me.

Whenever a pirated copy is better then the legal copy, there is something wrong with the legal copy.

Re:Recent studies

[xevioso]

This, I always thought, was always rather a silly and pithy quote from Jesus. As Christian theology makes clear, you will be judged regardless of if you do or do not judge. So maybe it makes sense to judge on occasion, just for the hell of it.

For example, I'm relatively certain that at the end of days, Harry Connick, Jr. and Jennifer Lopez will be judged for their talents of lack thereof, regardless of the fact that they were judges on American Idol.

Intersting

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a pretty interesting decision.

Regardless of what one thinks about copyright, forcing someone to do something ineffective to prevent it is just a waste of resources. Even if it is effective if the cost is greater than the benefit it could be questionable.
It seems that it would be reasonable that the copyright holder pays the cost to enforce the copyright, otherwise an entitled copyright holder might request that even symbolic measures should be taken at completely unreasonable costs

Re:Intersting

[houstonbofh]

It seems that it would be reasonable that the copyright holder pays the cost to enforce the copyright, otherwise an entitled copyright holder might request that even symbolic measures should be taken at completely unreasonable costs

Now if someone can just do this with spurrious takedown requests. When there is no cost to it, there is no reason to stop.

Re:Intersting

[DickBreath]

In addition to considering whether a measure is effective, it is reasonable to consider whether it is the ISP's job or Google's job or anyone else's job to police copyright infringement.

The ISP's job is to deliver and route packets. Period.

I mentioned Google, simply because the RIAA-holes also believe that it is Google's job to police copyright infringement as well as ISPs job.

What's Pirate Bay?

[RivenAleem]

Is that some sister site to Pirate Proxy?

An unexpected burst of common sense.

[SuricouRaven]

A ruling by Judge Obvious, and his assistant Sarcastic Clerk.

Re:An unexpected burst of common sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

You think that this ruling was common sense? It's very odd to issue a ruling based on whether blocking TPB was effective or ineffective. The only question a judge should ponder is whether the block was justified legally.

Re:An unexpected burst of common sense.

[jxander]

TPB does have some legitimate uses.

If blocking it causes no impact on the illegal uses, while hampering the legal ones... then it is wiser to not block it. Even if there were no legal reasons, blocking TPB costs resources; time and money. Spending those resources for zero gain is a fools errand.

It would be nice if we had a perfect set of rules that could adequately and fairly moderate every possible situation, but we don't. So we appoint people to make judgements on a case-by-case basis. We call them judges, and they've made a wise decision here.

Re:326 euros?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from the US and I had no problem reading it. Thanks for contributing to the perception of the dumb American.

On the down side...

[QuasiSteve]

On the down side...
1. Brein has already put out a bit of newsfluff saying that they're planning to appeal.
2. If this stands, Brein and others will simply put this on the scales to tip in favor of making downloading illegal* - something that the EU says NL should be doing in the first place; NL is one of the few countries where downloading of movies/music/TV series is legal (uploading is illegal, as is downloading of software, etc.) That in turn could lead to a 3-strikes type law (Even though the one in France fails miserably because 1. people avoid getting caught and 2. even when caught, rarely do people actually get cut off.. so it's all bark and no bite.) or direct targeting of downloaders.

* Within the context of 'piracy'. Obviously you're welcome to download the front page of slashdot, or a linux distribution, view whatever you want on YouTube, etc. etc.

Re:On the down side...

[QuasiSteve]

No you wouldnt, not after all the effort the spend convincing everyone that downloading anything is illegal

Despite the widespread hatred against them, Brein, Stichting Thuiskopie and others don't really do the "downloading is illegal!", and their websites actually make fairly clear what the law says can and cannot be done legally.

They can be faulted for many things, but not for any perceived "omg they're trying to make downloading linux illegal!"

Re:Um..

[jones_supa]

Temperature 6 C, light rain. Not that summery in Netherlands right now.

Stupid organisations

[chthon]

Dutch BREIN and Belgium's BAF, two stupid vampyric, leaching organisations, with obnoxious music and an idiot commercial at the beginning of all DVD's sold here in Holland and Belgium.

I find it heartening that BREIN needs to pay the legal costs.

Yay! ?

[nurb432]

Not sure if this is good or bad in the long run. Its good the order was lifted but it may pave the way for more invasive ways to restrict your access to the net and monitor where you go...