Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Piracy Politics Your Rights Online

Dutch Pirate Party Dragging BREIN To Court 123

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the it's-on dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Last week the Dutch Pirate Party refused to take down their proxy. Then, avoiding the Pirate Party in court, the entertainment industry organization BREIN obtained an injunction against the party's The Pirate Bay proxy (now a list of alternative proxies). After receiving additional demands from BREIN on Saturday night, including one to censor their generic proxy, the Dutch Pirate Party decided to take them to court, to strike the order and convince the judge of the need for due process and the freedom to inform." From the press release: "The penalties imposed by the court are 4 times higher than those ordered upon the large commercial ISPs XS4ALL and Ziggo..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dutch Pirate Party Dragging BREIN To Court

Comments Filter:
  • As much as I like to see this kind of "stick it to the man" attitude, this is merely the exploitation of a loophole. This will not last. I'll be very interested in seeing what they come up with next though.
    • Re:Loophole (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kjella (173770) on Monday April 16, 2012 @10:19AM (#39699929) Homepage

      As much as I like to see this kind of "stick it to the man" attitude, this is merely the exploitation of a loophole. This will not last. I'll be very interested in seeing what they come up with next though.

      Personally I would suggest "The Pirate Browser" essentially TorBrowser configured to use a SE exit node and TPB as the home page. With the move to magnet links it really shouldn't be that much of a strain on the network and it'd be pretty damn big to block the entire TOR network... also the Pirate Party has recently been polling at >10% in Germany, if they can keep this up or increase more to the election next year this will get *really* interesting.

      • by Opportunist (166417) on Monday April 16, 2012 @12:06PM (#39700805)

        The older geeks here might remember. Back in the 80s, our politicians didn't give half a shit about environment. The forest died, they ignored it. People protested, they ignored it. All because the industry was fearmongering that any environmental laws would threaten "Germany as an industry location". The sky was falling, companies were supposed to leave Germany in droves if laws were passed that dared to order filters for the pests they pumped into our environment.

        And behold, a party came into existence that had very few agendas safe one: Environment. And the second time they stood in elections, they gained a few seats in the parliament. And it grew because the established parties continued to ignore the issue. And what a joke that party was! People who didn't have a clue about politics, or so it seemed, they came in jeans instead of suits and didn't know how to "behave". And the longer they were ignored, the bigger the party got.

        30 years later the Greens are an established force in pretty much every parliament in Europe. In some countries they are or were already part of the government. The "big players" now have to deal with another party that siphons votes away from them, and as much as they'd love to, they can't really get rid of them anymore. The Greens became part of the political landscape in Europe.

        History repeats itself now. The issue now is privacy instead of environment, but the cards are played exactly the same way. Privacy is eliminated and ignored by the established parties, despite protests, citing the threat of losing jobs in the entertainment industry if we don't eliminate freedom and the right to privacy. People don't like that, or even oppose it to the extreme. And a party is formed that you actually know very little of besides one thing: It opposes this.

        And if the established parties continue to ignore what people actually want from them, they'll soon have to deal with yet another party sitting around in parliament cutting into their share of the cake. I cannot help but wish for history to repeat itself.

        • by Rob Riggs (6418) on Monday April 16, 2012 @01:28PM (#39701647) Homepage Journal

          Unfortunately we're not allowed to have a green party in the U.S. Nor are we allowed to have a pirate party. You either vote for the party of Big Business and Deficit Spending or you vote for the party of Deficit Spending and Big Business.

          Hey, at least it's a democracy!

          • by sjames (1099)

            Because otherwise, the wrong lizard might win.

          • by zlives (2009072)

            and here i thought we were a republic...

          • Your choices are:

            Tax and Spend: Deomcrats....

            Borrow and Spend: Republians...

            Neither is "big business" its all "big kickback", e.g. they don't care where the "election money" comes from as long as they get it.

            Both are in a race for the "religious vote" as it is the most volatile and humans are "loss adverse" so they worry more about the religious vote they wont get than the "don't give a fuck about that stuff" vote that they could buy quite easily with a reasonable platform.

            Most voters vote for Borrow and Sp

          • The US remind me more and more of (IIRC) Hungary before the fall of the East Bloc. There you had a choice too. You were allowed to choose between two or three candidates even. Of course, all of them communist, but hey, you had the free choice!

            It's a bit like having only one brand of oatmeal to choose from, but you may choose which of the hundred boxes on the shelf you take.

        • Is this the story which environmentalists tell themselves? This sounds ridiculous. Where's the dissent? As we all know, dissent is a healthy part of any debate. How about telling us the part about receiving, with full knowledge, funding from the Soviet Union? It's morally equivalent as taking funding from Khadaffy or Christians.
        • by steelfood (895457)

          You guys are lucky you have a functioning democracy.

          Some of us are not nearly as lucky, as we live under one in name only. We're also louder about being one than everyone else despite being otherwise (can you hazard a guess as to why?).

          • For the same reason every communist regime kept claiming it's a democracy and that the elections prove that?

        • by VomitInc (941517)
          Interesting to take the green example. Over here in Flanders the founding father of the Green party lamented more than a decade ago that his movement has been hijacked by extreme left activists to push their red agenda under the green flag. This week I read an article about the consolidated international pirate party. http://xandernieuws.punt.nl/?id=657895&r=1&tbl_archief [xandernieuws.punt.nl] Mixed with the free copying issue, which I would support, there were all sorts of neomarxist, anticapitalist and drug legalizatio
          • by Toonol (1057698)
            Agree, and why I would oppose them here in the states. They're a bit like the 99% loons. Their core and initial point, protesting against bailouts and corruption on wall street, is absolutely legitimate. But the movement quickly became so saturated with far left-wing rhetoric that they've lost support of all rational people. And I mean far left wing, advocating communism with straightfaced earnest ignorance.
            • by anwaya (574190)
              Statistically, there is a good chance -- 99 to 1, in fact - that you are part of the 99%, like me. If we had gone to the General Assemblies, we could have set the direction: for decisions were arrived at by consensus, which means it takes no more than one "no" to stop the group from moving in a particular direction.

              So if you object to the outcomes of the Occupy movement's meetings, then next time, show up. We're all invited.
              • Is that whoever is most stubborn always wins. It's not even about convincing the others, it's about boring them.

                My University had a ten month long student strike in 1999-2000. While at the beginning it *did* have majority support among the students and workers, it didn't take too long for the support to fade away. An over-ideologized group took the power, by just staying in the (six-to-eight hour long) assemblies the longest. In the end, there were two main groups fighting for control of the "movement": The

          • Your leftist agenda I'd call a liberal agenda. Aside of the unemployment issue that's something I would actually expect a liberal party to demand.

        • by nukenerd (172703)

          ...... behold, a party came into existence that had very few agendas safe one: Environment. And the second time they stood in elections, they gained a few seats in the parliament. And it grew because the established parties continued to ignore the issue.

          30 years later the Greens are an established force in pretty much every parliament in Europe..... The Greens became part of the political landscape in Europe.

          The Greens have only become serious politically because they ceased to be "green" and became just another socialist group. That happened when they dropped their target of reducing population numbers (in case it caused "misunderstanding").

          In reality very few people, whether politicians or Joe Public, give a toss about the environment; or rather they define "The Environment" as something important to themselves, such as the presence or otherwise of something they have a personal issue or paranoia about, li

  • by ninjaadmin (896197) on Monday April 16, 2012 @10:06AM (#39699831)
    How can you be forced to "take down" a pointer? Not only is tpb not hosting anything but pointers... but the proxy is just a pointer to a pointer... *boggle*
    • by jimmerz28 (1928616) on Monday April 16, 2012 @10:12AM (#39699873)

      If pointers are the hardest thing to learn in C++ for CS students just think how hard it is for brainless morons.

    • by houstonbofh (602064) on Monday April 16, 2012 @10:15AM (#39699895)
      What is really going to help is that the judge refused to listen to any arguments before issuing a judgement. It will be struck down, but this is only the beginning.
      • by geekmux (1040042) on Monday April 16, 2012 @10:37AM (#39700051)

        What is really going to help is that the judge refused to listen to any arguments before issuing a judgement. It will be struck down, but this is only the beginning.

        That depends on how corrupt and greedy the local legal system is. Here in the US, judges pass judgement all the damn time without caring for additional arguments. Spend a day listening to people fight unfair/unjust traffic citations and you'll quickly see that.

        • by sosume (680416)

          A judge in the US wouldn't dare issueing an ex-parte injunction against a political party.. aren't there international treaties against such abuse?

          • by Rasperin (1034758)

            A judge in the US wouldn't dare issueing an ex-parte injunction against a US political party.. but international political parties are fair game, because they aren't the great and all-mighty US.

            FTFY

        • by AngryDeuce (2205124) on Monday April 16, 2012 @11:16AM (#39700367)

          Or the open hostility some of the judiciary has shown in the various Obamacare lawsuits...

          As someone that's been watching the members of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court literally come to blows [dailykos.com] over partisan bickering, I have absolutely no doubt that many of the cases coming before the courts in this country are decided based solely on who the involved parties are or the political ramifications of a decision, regardless of the arguments.

        • by chrismcb (983081)

          Here in the US, judges pass judgement all the damn time without caring for additional arguments. Spend a day listening to people fight unfair/unjust traffic citations and you'll quickly see that.

          Have YOU spent a day in traffic court?
          For most items in traffic court it boils down to he/she said/the cop said. In absence of further evidence the judge is going to side for the cop, as they claim the cop doesn't have an incentive to lie. If you can prove the cop has an incentive to lie, the judge will listen to your side, if you have further evidence, the judge will listen to it. But when it is one side says, the other side says, the judge has to side for someone. And the judge will side with the cop. T

    • by Anonymous Coward

      How can you be forced to "take down" a pointer? Not only is tpb not hosting anything but pointers... but the proxy is just a pointer to a pointer... *boggle*

      It is circumventing a court order, therefore it must be shut down. If magic wishes allowed to circumvent the censorship they would try to ban magic. Reason is not something that courts understand; they are dumb fucks applying dumb laws for no reason other that it's the law.

    • by cdp0 (1979036) on Monday April 16, 2012 @10:25AM (#39699973)

      Anything that may hurt the profits of some ridiculously rich individuals can and will be blocked. It's as simple as that. Our freedom ends where their profit starts.

  • Tug-of-war (Score:4, Insightful)

    by concealment (2447304) on Monday April 16, 2012 @10:14AM (#39699887) Homepage Journal

    This is how it works in a liberal democracy. The side with the most people wins. Donate now to your favorite free speech or pirate cause, because that money is needed to buy more lobbyists, TV spots and print ads than the opposition.

    • Re:Tug-of-war (Score:5, Informative)

      by MisterMidi (1119653) on Monday April 16, 2012 @10:42AM (#39700097) Homepage
      Except that here in the Netherlands we don't have a liberal democracy, we have a constitutional parliamentary monarchy. In theory the side with most people wins, but in practice it's always a coalition between parties and no single party gets the power.
    • Re:Tug-of-war (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gstrickler (920733) on Monday April 16, 2012 @10:43AM (#39700101)

      This is why republics are superior to democracies. Democracy is tyranny of the people. A republic is governed by rule of law, a democracy is governed by the fickle will of the masses.

      • Re:Tug-of-war (Score:5, Insightful)

        by r_a_trip (612314) on Monday April 16, 2012 @10:50AM (#39700143)
        A republic is governed by rule of law Who gets to make the laws? I guess those are the republic's tyrants...
      • by Carewolf (581105)

        Noo. A republic is a form of government with a non-monarch as the head of state.

        Democracy is NOT a form of government but a philosophy of power. Most republics at least on paper pretends to be democracies, as in the power ultimately derives from the people. The key word here being ultimately, there can be several levels of indirection.

        • You should read the definitions of republic [reference.com] and democracy [reference.com]. You might find them informative.

          Democratic republics are the best form of government yet tried. But pure democracy is impractical when you have hundreds of thousands of citizens.

          • by Carewolf (581105)

            Democratic republics are the best form of government yet tried. But pure democracy is impractical when you have hundreds of thousands of citizens.

            You mean direct democracy, unlike indirect democracy which is also a democracy?

            Sorry, neither of those are forms of governments, they are methods of ruling, and by nature direct democracy does not have a form of government!. Fprms of governments are usually either monarchy or republics, depending on whether the head of state is a king or a president. Either of tho

        • by sjames (1099)

          The key word here being ultimately, there can be several levels of misdirection.

          FTFY

      • Palpatine? Is that you?

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      Donate now to your favorite free speech or pirate cause, because that money is needed to buy more lobbyists

      You are confusing democracy with plutocracy. A common mistake nowadays...

  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Monday April 16, 2012 @10:17AM (#39699907)

    The entertainment industry spent good money to buy those courts, and you DARE to presume you can just come in with no money and use them AGAINST their benefactors?!?!?

    I say good day to you, sir! GOOD DAY, SIR!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, 2012 @10:18AM (#39699915)

    "The penalties imposed by the court". On whom ? For what ?!

  • by dryriver (1010635) on Monday April 16, 2012 @10:28AM (#39699991)
    Instead of pioneering new, convenient, usable digital ways to distribute content (like free, ad-supported internet streaming of standard-def content over, say, Youtube or Vimeo), the Entertainment industry seems determined to forcibly shut down any alternative, ad-hoc digital distribution means that has sprung up (like P2P & Torrents). Lets suppose for a moment that the Entertainment Industry manages to shut it all down for good... All of it. Really ALL OF IT. No more ways to get free dl links, free movie streaming, or any other way left to download/view Hollywood content online without paying. Will the industry's sales and profits suddenly go up? Perhaps by a measly few percent (say 2 - 4%), as some of the people who used to get stuff free off the internet now grudgingly head to the entertainment store to buy a DVD or BluRay instead, or buy a few movies/shows on iTunes-like online services. But what about the people who really used to love using Torrents and such? They will very likely stop consuming Hollywood movies/U.S. TV Shows/MPAA-RIAA content altogether. Can you live without consuming this stuff at all? Yes, you very much can. Do you miss out on anything doing this? Only if you are a 14 year old teenager who thinks that to be "hip" or "in the loop", you need to see the latest incarnation of the Hollywood trash all your friends at school are talking about. ---- With its latest actions, the Entertainment Industry has proven once more that it is composed of "9 Parts Business/Industry" and "1 Part Entertainment". It has also proven that it lives decades in the past, business-model wise, and that it simply cannot make effective use of the internet as a means of distribution. The likely result of all this? The generation that grew up with P2P and Torrents will probably hate Hollywood/MPAA/RIAA for the rest of their lives, and likely consume as little Hollywood/U.S. made content as possible. It will probably do this just to hurt the MPAA/RIAA back.
    • by jeti (105266)

      What if it's not about raking in a few more nickels in the short term? The means to record, edit and and publish both music and video of good quality are now available to mere hobbyists. If the publishers can no longer control the outlets, their importance will dwindle. At least over in Germany, we're already seeing movies that were crowd-sourced or created by hobbyists on the big screens of movie theaters.

    • by Kjella (173770)

      But what about the people who really used to love using Torrents and such? They will very likely stop consuming Hollywood movies/U.S. TV Shows/MPAA-RIAA content altogether. Can you live without consuming this stuff at all? Yes, you very much can. Do you miss out on anything doing this? Only if you are a 14 year old teenager who thinks that to be "hip" or "in the loop", you need to see the latest incarnation of the Hollywood trash all your friends at school are talking about.

      Oh bullshit. Of all the things I could have been reading or watching or listening or playing games or doing some hobby or going somewhere or doing something I decided to sit down to watch that show. And I didn't just hit the "on" switch to gaze at whatever is on either, I specifically went online and got that show. Do I need it? Hell no, it's entertainment but I don't strictly speaking need most of the things in my life. You're just trying to belittle everyone that watches anything mainstream claiming they'

    • by Elbereth (58257)

      Instead of pioneering new, convenient, usable digital ways to distribute content (like free, ad-supported internet streaming of standard-def content over, say, Youtube or Vimeo), the Entertainment industry seems determined to forcibly shut down any alternative, ad-hoc digital distribution means that has sprung up (like P2P & Torrents).

      What about Hulu, Crackle, Vevo, etc? Aren't those exactly what you're asking for?

      Will the industry's sales and profits suddenly go up? Perhaps by a measly few percent (say 2 - 4%), as some of the people who used to get stuff free off the internet now grudgingly head to the entertainment store to buy a DVD or BluRay instead, or buy a few movies/shows on iTunes-like online services.

      I think you're pulling numbers out of your ass.

      The generation that grew up with P2P and Torrents will probably hate Hollywood/MPAA/RIAA for the rest of their lives, and likely consume as little Hollywood/U.S. made content as possible. It will probably do this just to hurt the MPAA/RIAA back.

      That's possible, but I doubt it. Just talk to a few random people, and you'll find that you share absolutely nothing in common in them. They don't give a shit about your concerns, and you probably don't give a shit about their concerns. My sister is one of those anti-vaccine, pro-organic people. She loves Apple and all of her iProducts. If you listen to her, all of the world'

    • There's not much these guys wouldn't do for 2-4% more profit, even if it's only short-term.
  • by Covalent (1001277) on Monday April 16, 2012 @10:37AM (#39700053)
    If only we were able to have an organized party like this in the U.S.

    Our only choices are "In the pocket of the MPAA" and "In the pocket of the MPAA"...oh, wait...
    • Anyone know the green and libertarian party policies on these issues?
      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        That's a very good point. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that the Constitution Party (also on enough ballots to win the last Presidential election) would probably be for copyright reform.

        I can't vote for them amy more than the asses and elephants, though, becaus eof their stance on drugs. Someone you love smokes pot and you're going to vote for someone who wants your loved ones in jail? I'll stick to the Greens and Libbies until we get a viable Pirate Party.

    • Sorry bu no: http://us.pirate.is/ [pirate.is] Its only a illusion that you only have two choices.
      • by Shadow99_1 (86250)

        Tell me that when I can vote for them. I can't even write in my vote anymore for who I want, but I'm forced to chose someone who is already on the ballet and the two main parties make that extremely hard past local office.

    • Our choices in the US are:

      In the pocket of the MPAA and RIAA.

      -or-

      In the pocket of any successful monetary concern (churches are monitary concerns here as are the entertainment industries).

      So one is pro MAFIAA and the other is pro MAFIAA with a side of "what are you doing wiht that there reproductive organ".

  • by Neelix21 (143043) on Monday April 16, 2012 @01:11PM (#39701469)

    This demand from BREIN comes hot on the heels of a University of Amsterdam research [www.uva.nl] (in Dutch) which shows that the blocking the Pirate Bay URL and IPs on certain ISPs has no noticeable effect on torrent downloading activities. Taking down proxies is probably not going to make much of a dent in that either.

"Of course power tools and alcohol don't mix. Everyone knows power tools aren't soluble in alcohol..." -- Crazy Nigel

Working...