Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Handed Conditional Prison Sentence for Spreading Information About Popcorn Time Service (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tough-luck dept.

A man from Denmark has been handed a six-month conditional prison sentence for spreading information about Popcorn Time, an authorized on-demand movies and TV shows streaming service, news outlet TorrentFreak reports. From the report: In what is being described as a first for Europe, the man was convicted after telling people how to download, install and use the movie streaming service. He was also ordered to forfeit $83,300 in ad revenue and complete 120 hours community service.

120 comments

  1. selective enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...He was also ordered to forfeit $83,300 in ad revenue...

    And THAT'S what fucked him, right there.

    1. Re:selective enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no. it was even thinking about pirating. thats whats wrong. the rest comes from this.

  2. Clickbait horse stuff by Aighearach · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What a load! You don't make $83,300 in ad revenue from just "spreading information about [banned service]." Sounds like maybe there would be other English words that would more accurately describe what he's accused of.

    1. Re:Clickbait horse stuff by tattood · · Score: 4, Informative
      From TFA:

      In August 2015, police in Denmark announced they had arrested a man in his thirties said to be the operator of a Popcorn Time-focused website. Popcorntime.dk was subsequently shut down and its domain placed under the control of the state prosecutor.

      ...

      PopcornTime.dk was an information resource, offering news on Popcorn Time-related developments, guides, plus tips on how to use the software while staying anonymous.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    2. Re:Clickbait horse stuff by h4x0t · · Score: 3, Informative

      Article says he ran a website that hosted no software. Just news about and information on how to use [banned service]. He got ad rev from the site. Didn't even link directly software, just to places that link to it.

    3. Re:Clickbait horse stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His real crime, like that of millions of others, is, in fact, advertising, the greatest pestilence on the planet, a disease that rots souls across the world, a malign degeneration that causes severe harm wherever it spreads.

      As such, the only condition to his sentence should be whether or not he wants a blindfold and ballgag.

    4. Re:Clickbait horse stuff by msauve · · Score: 2
      "spreading information about [banned service]."

      So, when the summary says

      Popcorn Time, an authorized on-demand movies and TV shows streaming service

      ...it really means "unauthorized?"

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:Clickbait horse stuff by Kjella · · Score: 1

      So, when the summary says [an authorized on-demand movies and TV shows streaming service] it really means "unauthorized?"

      Well probably not 100% illegal just as you could find Linux CDs on The Pirate Bay. I guess he's trying to hide between a very thin veil that says he only instructed people how to use the site, he didn't explicitly tell them to pirate anything. That generally doesn't work, if you're the mob's accountant you're still part of the mob. This guy must have basically been their marketing department, this is not your random peep telling a buddy where to find it. It's large scale commercial gain.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Clickbait horse stuff by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Clearly making money off of the illegal thing is enough. Courts are allowed to employ the common sense eyeball test, obfuscations don't get you out of trouble.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    7. Re:Clickbait horse stuff by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Clearly making money off of the illegal thing is enough. Courts are allowed to employ the common sense eyeball test, obfuscations don't get you out of trouble.

      Although true, I still have trouble believing they would not simply find something else to charge him with even if he ran the site on his own money. Look how far authorities have gone, in some cases even breaking their own laws, not to mention issues regarding national sovereignty, in order to go after those they perceive as threats to the copyright cartels and their business models.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    8. Re: Clickbait horse stuff by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      mre interesting is surely the corrupt danish police and judges that allowed ths to ggo to trial. No way this wasnâ(TM)t motivated by bribes from the media industry.

    9. Re: Clickbait horse stuff by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      sucky ipad touch keyboard, last apple device i ever buy.

    10. Re: Clickbait horse stuff by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Denmark sure does hate freedom.

    11. Re:Clickbait horse stuff by RickRussellTX · · Score: 1

      They put him in prison

      Where is that in the article? I believe that "conditional" prison sentence in this context is like a suspended sentence: he doesn't go to prison unless he commits a new crime or fails to meet the requirements of his sentence (community service, restitution).

    12. Re: Clickbait horse stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Are you fucking retarded?

      CNN makes ad revenue off of murder, rape, and terrorism.

      Lock them up!

    13. Re: Clickbait horse stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the happiest way!

    14. Re:Clickbait horse stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly making money off of the illegal thing is enough.

      Newspapers and TV news often cover muders, and sell advertising around that coverage. Murder is illegal. Are news outlets criminally liable for "profiting from an illegal activity"?

      Many books and movies have characters who try to "get away with" a crime. Many include details of how it might be done. Are the authors liable for that?

  3. You made a profit... by bobbied · · Score: 2

    That's why you got criminal charges and a sentence... If you are going to do this and hope to get away with it, at least don't profit from it... You make yourself a huge target when you make a profit doing this kind of thing so you will be first on the list.

    This guy made how much from ad revenue? $83K

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:You made a profit... by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      If you are going to do this and hope to get away with it, at least don't profit from it.

      The other way to get away with it is to incorporate, and make so much money that you can tie up the courts for years with legal maneuvering while you launder the money. This is what The SCO Group did to steal Novell's money and property.

    2. Re:You made a profit... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      LOL.. I'm not so sure that SCO thing worked out well, in the end.... But you have a point.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  4. Re:Jail and a fine for shilling ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These jokes aren't funny anymore.

    Sincerely,

    creimer

  5. Re: Russian: selective enforcement by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    You spam bots are getting more advanced by the day ...

  6. Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't seen them all, but I wouldn't have paid for more than 3 or 4.

    The problem is Hollywood. They make shit movies, and charge way too much for pure f-ing shit. There was actually a time when they created *original* movies like "Predator" and "Aliens", and showed them for less than $10.

    Greed has destroyed the industry, along with ethno-gender pandering.

    1. Re:Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is Hollywood. They make shit movies, and charge way too much for pure f-ing shit.

      Nobody is making you watch them. If they are such shit, stop watching, problem solved? Go pick up a book.

    2. Re:Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should you pay to be lectured to? Both movies you mention are chock-full of diversity and gender role-reversals: The rescue team in predator is black, white, indian and hispanic. Aliens is centered around women, from the sole-survivor to the queen bug.

      So what changed? Apparently, having its not diverse or gendered enough unless you spend a significant amount of screen time showing HOW TERRIBLE white people are, and men in particular. This has disgusted everyone. Hollywood ran out of ideas and now its cannibalizing anything that ever "worked" or made money.

    3. Re:Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "HOW TERRIBLE white people are, and men in particular"

      Yup, we only want movies that show make believe, not reality

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    4. Re:Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tell us how you really feel about WhollyWeird...

      They are victims of their own success formulas. Nobody is willing to take risks unless it's been tried before. If you have a story or a film that doesn't follow one of the paths that was successful before, good luck getting funded. Of course, the bean counters are not all to blame. They have also forgotten the fist rule of business, don't offend your customers. In the race to the bottom driven by "sex sells" they continue to shock and offend the majority of their customers, then to add insult to injury they make light of traditional values and insult a large portion of those who find them important. Don't get me started on the ill-advised political stance they take (always a bad idea to take sides on such polarizing topics).

    5. Re: Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must live a very empty life if this bothers you that much. Try volunteering. Most people find that helping others is a great way to start building an identity as something more than "white guy."

    6. Re:Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Movies that are so shit that you spent your time and money downloading 300 of them, proving to them your desire for them and helping to justify their shitty lockdowns. If you want to protest you protest by not consuming their shit, all you are doing is justifying their actions.

    7. Re:Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then to add insult to injury they make light of traditional values

      Bible-thumping hypocrite-like typing detected

    8. Re:Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      The problem is Hollywood.

      It's as much of a problem for you as any other entity that produces poor quality products. You just don't buy them.

      The problem here is people assuming easy access to quality movies, on their terms, is a god-given right.

      There was actually a time when they created *original* movies like "Predator" and "Aliens", and showed them for less than $10.

      There was also a time when a candy bar was a nickle.

    9. Re: Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it's called inflation.
      Blame the FED for it, they're the ones making profit off it..

    10. Re:Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the problem is actually Hollywood. The rate of "well spent" to "wasted money/time" for seeing a new film was maybe 1:3 or 1:4. Not great, but worth the odds, especially when a really decent film could make up for a few bombs.

      Now it's more like 1:20, which is unacceptable, especially at current prices.

    11. Re:Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      The problem is Hollywood. They make shit movies, and charge way too much for pure f-ing shit.

      Nobody is making you watch them. If they are such shit, stop watching, problem solved?

      How would you know they are shit unless you watched them? Sounds like the GP did stop watching some. Trouble is that movies are launched with such hype that you think they must be worth watching, so you give it a try.

    12. Re:Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      If you want to protest you protest by not consuming their shit.

      Doesn't work. Ignoring things is never noticed by those responsible for the things. What might have more effect is to watch the shit and then say it's shit in a review on IMDB - not a huge effect from your one review, but collectively it would hurt them. Of course you might have other things to do with your time.

    13. Re:Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Subtle that, we almost missed your racism. And sexism.

    14. Re: Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Maybe the point is that most white guys identify as the person that they are, and resent other people trying to label them as white or male, and particularly react against people trying to suggest that either label is inherently bad.

      Perhaps protesting against other people being racist sexist cunts is something they could volunteer to do. You'd support that, surely?

    15. Re:Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You poor, poor victim.

    16. Re:Stole the last 300 movies. No regrets. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Subtle that, we almost missed your racism. And sexism.

      You missed something alright. But not what you think

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  7. Not precisely. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Forfeited $83000 in revenue?

    Methinks he wasn't just "telling them about the service".

    IMO from an American law point of view, it wouldn't seem that he did anything precisely illegal, merely enabled other people to do things which might include illegality. It'd be like hosting a site on lockpicking.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Not precisely. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      IIRC, Napster was brought down with a similar argument, though I think that was in civil court.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Not precisely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Napster was directly sharing files and clearly illegal. But I sure do miss it.

    3. Re:Not precisely. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      No, they didn't host the files. My recollection was correct:

      ...by largely affirming a lower-court ruling that the company encourages and abets the wholesale infringement of copyrights.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Not precisely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except lockpicking is legal in the US, as is hosting a site about it. Here's a site that both teaches lockpicking and discusses its legality. By and large, their members are not generally targeted by law enforcement.

    5. Re:Not precisely. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Picking your own locks is legal. Picking someone else's locks probably require a locksmith license. And possession of locksmith tools I believe is illegal unless you have a locksmith license. (But many auto parts stores sell the same equipment the locksmith uses to open cars after people lock their keys inside... will I get busted for buying them?)

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    6. Re: Not precisely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Napster was peer to peer file sharing. The list of files and their locations was centrally hosted by them.

    7. Re:Not precisely. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      In the UK you'd get seriously spanked for carrying them around without what the court would rule was reasonable cause.

    8. Re:Not precisely. by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      There's loads of sites on lockpicking for both professionals and locksport practitioners. Generally, the lock-picking tools aren't illegal by themselves, but you might need to explain yourself if you're acting suspiciously (most burglars wouldn't have the relevant skills to pick a lock and instead would just break their way in instead).

      Car door lock picking tools are more suspicious as locksport doesn't usually include car doors, so you'd better have a good reason for carrying them.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    9. Re: Not precisely. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      And that's what this guy had - a list of files and their locations in the form of hyperlinks. And detailed instructions. And, like Napster, he was trying to make money with it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  8. Re:Jail and a fine for shilling ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Creimertard. Mod down.

  9. Re: Jail and a fine for shilling ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I laughed. We all laugh at you. You are a sad sack of shit. Think football player.

      Don't like it? Find a new site. The slashdot TOS is permissive.

  10. Authorized? by terbeaux · · Score: 1

    Authorized to do what by who? It's a torrent site.

    1. Re:Authorized? by Spilt_Blood · · Score: 1

      Lol right?

      --
      X = -([squareroot] [infinity]) X = (i^2 * [infinity]) or (-1 * [infinity]) X = "A Black hole"
  11. Something lost in translation by sgage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I read the article, and as near as I can figure, he was busted for posting instructions on how to download, install, and use software for pirating content from PopcornTime.

    From the /. excerpt, it sounds like all he was doing was helping people to legally use the service. Highly misleading.

    And what a crappy headline... I have pretty low expectations for accuracy in /. postings, but this is one of the more egregious cases of crap editing, or something. Unless it was intentionally misleading.

    1. Re:Something lost in translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? Should we can scientific websites because people can use the instructions to make bombs? Wtf is wrong with you people. Instructions for illegal content? Bunch of bullshit.

    2. Re:Something lost in translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is par for the course with msmash

  12. ...from an "authorized" site? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Currently, the summary reads:

    A man from Denmark has been handed a six-month conditional prison sentence for spreading information about Popcorn Time, an authorized on-demand movies and TV shows streaming service.

    So either the summary is wrong and the site was illegal (which is what I suspect) or someone needs to explain why making money pointing people to a legal streaming site is illegal.

    1. Re:...from an "authorized" site? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Contributory copyright infringement for commercial gain. Profit from a web site designed specifically to instruct people how to infringe copyright and you will likely be held partially liable for their actions.

      It's a little like the person instructing the gang how to pull off a heist. Even if they don't participate in the heist they are still criminally liable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re: ...from an "authorized" site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you don't make any money off advertising, or anything like that?
      Sort of modern day Robin Hood? Just lay off your own pocket for server hosting and anything else associated with it?
      Will this still bring a punishment against you?

    3. Re:...from an "authorized" site? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Contributory copyright infringement for commercial gain.

      That only applies if there is copyright infringement. If you point people to, and I quote the summary, "an authorized site" where is the copyright infringement? If the site is authorized there is no copyright infringement involved. For example, if I set up a website to point people to Netflix I would not expect that to be illegal even if I made money out of it.

    4. Re:...from an "authorized" site? by munch117 · · Score: 1

      and I quote the summary

      Why on earth would you do that? You have the whole internet at your fingertips, and you pick the slashdot summary as your prime source of information??

    5. Re:...from an "authorized" site? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      If you point people to, and I quote the summary, "an authorized site" where is the copyright infringement?

      You need to expect a certain degree of dishonesty. Authorized site to do what? Popcorn seems according to what I read to be software that is intended to be used for copyright infringement. You can be authorized by say the authors of popcorn to link to their site. At the same time you are not authorized by the copyright owners of gazillions of different works to help with copyright infringement of their works.

    6. Re:...from an "authorized" site? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      My point entire point was that the summary was inconsistent and made no sense. That's why I quoted it!

    7. Re:...from an "authorized" site? by munch117 · · Score: 1

      If you say so.

    8. Re:...from an "authorized" site? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      I do.

  13. The best machine guns to kill in movie theaters by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Someone who runs a website actively promoting illegal activities needs to be squeaky clean to get away with it. If you are making money off it, it's going to look bad. I don't know the Danish laws but in the US there's only so much you can hide behind on the first amendment which protects free speech not commerical speech.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:The best machine guns to kill in movie theaters by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Did the Constitution get amended? The 1st seems pretty simple.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    2. Re:The best machine guns to kill in movie theaters by nasch · · Score: 1

      the first amendment which protects free speech not commerical speech.

      The first definitely protects commercial speech, just not as strongly as some other kinds.

    3. Re:The best machine guns to kill in movie theaters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... If I happen to know a guy who sells meth... And I happen to own billboards on the highway near his house... I can get in trouble if I sell that billboard space?

    4. Re:The best machine guns to kill in movie theaters by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

      If you're advertising how to reach him to purchase meth, you will certainly be in trouble, yes.

  14. What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    What's next? If you mention something illegal in conversation, you can be reported, arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to prison?

    "Thought crime"

    1. Re:What's next? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Does that mean msmash is due for indictment for posting this story? How many people never heard of "Popcorn Time" before this article, and now have the seed planted for illegal activity?

      Conspiracy charges, here we come!

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    2. Re:What's next? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      What's next? If you mention something illegal in conversation, you can be reported, arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to prison?

      This is the comment of a person that's run out of real problems to worry them and are now inventing fantastical ones to fulfill some deep seated need to be threatened. They took away the money he made by selling access to IP he didn't own (and yes, if he collected ad revenue, that's selling it). How terrible.

      Regardless of how you feel about movie piracy, actually selling someone else's IP takes it to a new level.

    3. Re:What's next? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      If the mob pays you $83,000 to run messages about planned robberies and murders between people, then yes you will be arrested for your mere mentions of the crimes.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    4. Re:What's next? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Wow, I've just found popcorntime.sh ! Never heard of it before. Jailtime for msmash, she (he?) led me on.

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Something is rotten by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 2, Funny

    .. in the state of Denmark.

  17. Popcorn Time Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I though this was about information related to a new NTP replacement, or something, and was all upset about it for a second +- flick.

  18. What about this is criminal by guruevi · · Score: 0

    If PopcornTime is an authorized streaming service, then he is simply reviewing a service. So in Denmark you can't write reviews about software that streams movies?

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:What about this is criminal by sgage · · Score: 1

      You evidently didn't read the article. Basically, his website was a guide to illegally pirating PopcornTime content, complete with how-to's, links to pirating software, and so forth.

      Whether that should be illegal or not is another question, but his activities were not as innocent as writing reviews of streaming software.

    2. Re:What about this is criminal by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Oh... so his "crime" was reported the existing flaws in the Popcorn Time content protection mechanism? Wouldn't giving him a reward and then fixing the defects make more sense?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:What about this is criminal by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I read the summary, which said PopcornTime is an "authorized" service. Being authorized means per definition it is not illegal and calling it a service means someone else is running/providing the service and you're paying ($0 or more) to consume it. If it's a service, you can presume to be paying for the licensing.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  19. It would be twice as worse if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They would fix the Anime section -_-

  20. Socialist Utopia by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

    Isn't Denmark one of the go-to nations that American liberals use as a shining example of socialist government done right?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Socialist Utopia by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The "liberals" mostly hold up a failed nations like Venezuela, Cuba, China as their Communist vision for the USA.
      Denmark still has a working economy and liberals are pushing for a more Soviet Socialist government.
      The SJW liberals would like the thought crime part. Spreading information as a crime is something a SJW would covert for their go-to nations.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Socialist Utopia by Teun · · Score: 1

      There's very little Socialist about the last several Danish governments, they are more and more populist, you know, afraid of others.

      But Denmark does have great social services, among the best in the world.
      As an example their health services are ranked 2rd. in Europe.
      https://healthpowerhouse.com/p...

      From personal experience I would say their legal system is rather sparse, for example they have 'just' a parliament but no senate or similar.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    3. Re:Socialist Utopia by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Denmark is a great place, but yeah, they do have that 75% tax rate (which the citizens don't seem to mind too much.)

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:Socialist Utopia by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Hi troll. We see you and aren't falling for it.

    5. Re:Socialist Utopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You already did, moron.

    6. Re:Socialist Utopia by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Oooooh burn!!! Ah, I have one too: I know you are but what am I?

      I know, it's all part of the plan to antagonize and sow hate. It's okay we get it. We understand your motives. I just hope your getting paid for it because it's a pretty pathetic way to spend your time.

    7. Re:Socialist Utopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A senate is the upper house of parliament those countries who are or have been kingdoms once usually have. The Danish had one until the constitutional reform of 1953. The lack of upper house actually condenses the legislative system, instead of making it more sparse. ;)

    8. Re:Socialist Utopia by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      "Hi troll. We see you and aren't falling for it."

    9. Re:Socialist Utopia by Kiwikwi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Should we mind that entirely made up tax rate?

      The Danish income tax is just around the EU average. E.g. in 2013, the average single Dane paid an effective income tax of 38%, compared to 31% in the US, 49% in Germany or 56% in Belgium. (Source: OECD)

      (Many people in the above mentioned countries will react with disbelief when they see these numbers, but then, it really shouldn't surprise anyone that OECD understands the tax systems of the respective countries better than most citizens.)

      Incidentally, that Belgian average tax rate of 56% is the same as the Danish marginal (and thus also maximum) rate.

      Maybe you're thinking of the OECD "tax burden" (total tax revenue, including VAT and fees, as a percentage of GDP), which is sometimes brought up by politicians campaigning on tax cuts? But even that is only 46%, and while it is indeed (barely) the highest in OECD, it's also a largely meaningless number, as revenue-neutral changes to the tax system can have significant impact on it. (E.g. in Denmark, people pay taxes on welfare checks. If instead we did like most countries and just paid out equivalent tax-free – but smaller – checks, the OECD tax burden would drop an estimated 4% points, and six OECD countries would suddenly be ahead of us.)

    10. Re:Socialist Utopia by Teun · · Score: 1

      I agree the 75% is wrong.
      But you forgot to add 22-25% of kommuneskat (Local tax) to the 38% income tax...
      Denmark also has the highest VAT allowed by the EU, 25% on anything you buy.
      And please don't forget the tax on cars that is up to 198%.

      I asked the Danish skat (tax man) what I would have to pay would I decide to take my (Dutch) pension in Denmark, a nice round 50%!

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    11. Re:Socialist Utopia by Teun · · Score: 1

      The lack of a second chamber of parliament makes the Danish system quite unstable, there is nothing stopping a new (or existing) government to come up with the wildest laws.
      The recent changes in car taxation are an example, the smallest cars were made more expensive...

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    12. Re:Socialist Utopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is nothing stopping a new (or existing) government to come up with the wildest laws.

      There are constitutional courts in Denmark? Also, we have multistage process monitoring constitutionality in Finland, starting with the constitutional committees and ending with the president. Surely Denmark have something similar? It is true that even with careful monitoring and legislative preparation successive governments leave their confusing legacies, good and bad, particularly if the political field is very polarized or the right questions and answers are not well-defined.

    13. Re:Socialist Utopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I asked the Danish skat (tax man) what I would have to pay would I decide to take my (Dutch) pension in Denmark, a nice round 50%!

      Be reasonable. If you don't surrender half of your life's earnings to the Danish government then how can we have roads.

  21. home-made explosives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... spreading information about Popcorn Time ...

    Yes, in most of the world copyright infringing is a criminal act. So he is inciting criminal activity. It's similar to countries banning information about home-made explosives.

    1. Re: home-made explosives by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      It is not a criminal act in the USA where it matters, since Hollywood is in the US. (You are likely confused by the difference between criminal and civil law)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  22. Why the terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You wonder. Batshit crazy.

  23. complicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In some countries pointing out HOW to do something illegal makes you an accomplice and is as illegal as the original. E.g. telling oeople how to cook illegal drug is sonetime illegal just like selling it us. For all i know it could be the same in danemark.

    1. Re: complicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, that makes sense, but the summary says that it is an *authorized* streaming service. If the summary is wrong, then ok, but that's the source of confusion in the grandparent comment.

    2. Re:complicity by Falos · · Score: 1

      Marijuanna seeds should be soaked in warm (72-80F) water 1-2 days. They will initially float, but ought to sink after the soak. Choose healthy seeds that are green and meaty; immature seeds will have a smaller, white appearance.

      Prepare soil with one cup hydrated lime per square yard, and some water-soluble nitrogen fertilizer. Ideal soil will cake when squeezed, but break when prodded, and absorbs water well.

      Plant ~6 inches deep, pointy end up. Sprouts will be visible in ~5 days blah blah blah

      This is too slow, let's just have Dice facilitate how-to-homocide: Pointy end goes in the other guy.

  24. Barbara strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Streisand Effect... having the man arrested, imprisoned etc is doing MORE to spread information about Popcorn Time than the guy they are imprisoning. Go figure. I wonder if the prosecutors get the irony here... /me goes to look up Popcorn Time

  25. Authorized? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    an authorized on-demand movies and TV shows streaming service

    Authorized by whom? Or do you mean unauthorized? We have to ask these questions, given Slashdot's lack of competent editing.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  26. Bad news for the entertainment industry by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Many modern book, TV series, movies, and video games tell people how to commit murder, i.e. "Point gun, pull trigger!" Can they be held responsible for the results of anyone following those instructions?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Bad news for the entertainment industry by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Many modern book, TV series, movies, and video games tell people how to commit murder, i.e. "Point gun, pull trigger!"

      Historically, that is why the puritans c1600 were opposed to theatres, even ones putting on "serious" plays, like Shakespeare's. Bernard Cornwell describes the situation well in his book "Fools and Mortals".

  27. Lazy story is another msmash terd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should have guessed. Editor is msmash.

  28. An authorised service... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That you can convicted for telling people about!

  29. Appeal by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    This is a decision from a court of first instance. It will probably be overturned in apellate court.

    1. Re:Appeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you base that on? Do you specialise in Danish Law?

  30. Re: The best machine guns to kill in movie theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not.

  31. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  32. Denmark = shithole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would anyone voluntarily chose to live in that shithole?

  33. 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thought crime.

    Doubleplus good fucking Danes have no sense of freedom.

    1. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeabut, how about that Mohamed cartoon? (well Mohamed did perform genocide, so whats the problem?)
      Crimes against wealth, taxation and monopoly is dealt with more severely than killing homeless people.

  34. dividing line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So where is the dividing line between what is legal and what is illegal?

    If I tell a friend about Popcorn Time, could I go to jail?

    If not, then what about if I run a blog and happen to mention it one day, and without even giving a link? But there have been many stories in the mainstream media that have done exactly that, so are they all in violation of the law?

    The underlying problem here, which the authorities don't seem to understand, is that the way the internet works, if there is information that a significant number of people want to know, there is no practical way to keep it from being distributed (at least not without running an authoritarian state like China).

    One more thought. So if you want to run a Popcorn Time information site, maybe you should do it on tor hidden services. Which might lead to a lot of people downloading tails to access it, and they will then unfortunately be able to access a lot of much more nasty stuff.