Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship The Courts Politics

Judge Rules Takedown of Pirate Party General Proxy Illegal 74

Posted by Unknown Lamer
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Rules Takedown of Pirate Party General Proxy Illegal

Comments Filter:
  • by KGIII (973947) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @07:47AM (#39721791) Journal

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

    • by MoonBuggy (611105)

      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 p

      • by i kan reed (749298) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @09:18AM (#39722541) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • Tort is a common law concept. Does it even apply to the Netherlands?

        • 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 expl

          • 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 [hyvitysmaksu.fi] 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 [hyvitysmaksu.fi] (about 2½ M euro out of 6 M euro collected in 2010). In return, Finns are allowed to legally copy any media [hyvitysmaksu.fi] they want for personal use, including CDs or DVDs borrowed from public libraries or from friends.

        • 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 neg

    • Good indeed
  • by mykos (1627575) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @07:48AM (#39721805)
    Clearly the anti-piracy outfits have no respect for the law; perhaps people should start doing what they can to quit funding them.
    • But the creation and distribution of media with a Creative Commons (or similar) license.

      • Re:Not piracy (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @09:18AM (#39722547)

        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.

        • Re:Not piracy (Score:5, Interesting)

          by MisterMidi (1119653) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @11:42AM (#39724143) Homepage
          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.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      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

  • I downloaded them all and uploaded none!
  • by dryriver (1010635) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @07:59AM (#39721901)
    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.
    • by RichardDeVries (961583) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @08:12AM (#39721989) Journal

      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.

      • by pahles (701275)

        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?

        • 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 b

          • by xenobyte (446878)

            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 th

            • 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.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      The country is too freedom-loving by nature...

      That sounds awfully familiar somehow.

    • by Ash-Fox (726320)

      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 h

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @08:57AM (#39722349)

        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.

        • by Ash-Fox (726320)

          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

        • by Anonymous Coward

          .."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,

        • 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.

      • 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).

        • by Ash-Fox (726320)

          - 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 [youtube.com]

          - 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 [youtube.com] wouldn't be an issue repeatedly while member states had few issues without the

          • by marsu_k (701360)

            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, the

            • by Ash-Fox (726320)

              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 "u

              • by marsu_k (701360)

                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".

    • 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.
  • by geekmux (1040042) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @08:02AM (#39721917)

    "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...

  • 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?

    • Re:Wait a second.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Calydor (739835) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @08:18AM (#39722019)

      It may be more accurate to say they won this battle, but the war is not over yet.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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 dir

  • by Hentes (2461350) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @08:23AM (#39722055)

    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.

    • by CAPSLOCK2000 (27149) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @08:42AM (#39722217) Homepage

      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.

    • 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".
    • by Shagg (99693)

      If it was up to the RIAA/MPAA they would outlaw the internet.

  • so when we say (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nimbius (983462) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @08:25AM (#39722067) Homepage

    "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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by BorgDrone (64343)

      "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 ?

"In the face of entropy and nothingness, you kind of have to pretend it's not there if you want to keep writing good code." -- Karl Lehenbauer

Working...