Dutch Pirate Party Dragging BREIN To Court 123
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..."
Loophole (Score:2)
Re:Loophole (Score:5, Informative)
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.
It's the 80s all over again (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:It's the 80s all over again (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Because otherwise, the wrong lizard might win.
Re: (Score:3)
and here i thought we were a republic...
Your categories are wrong (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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?).
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason every communist regime kept claiming it's a democracy and that the elections prove that?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if you object to the outcomes of the Occupy movement's meetings, then next time, show up. We're all invited.
The problem with the assemblies system (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
...... 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
Re: (Score:2)
A third of the German population said in a recent poll that they could consider voting for the PP. 33% of the population considering the "right" to infringe copyright important enough to think about voting for them, about 10% actually do.
I guess the Content Industry is in deeper shit than even they thought...
I don't understand... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Funny)
If pointers are the hardest thing to learn in C++ for CS students just think how hard it is for brainless morons.
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, don't knock pointers. I had a friend who got a semester's worth of lap dances for extra tutoring in pointers... :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand... (Score:4, Funny)
Heh. He was at a strip bar. One of the dancers saw him working away at his laptop (yeah, I know!), and it turns out she was in his Intro to C class, and one thing led to another... :)
Remember, nothing is impossible in this universe. You're just jealous it had to happen, and it happened to him, and not you :)
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything 'bout girls?
Re:I don't understand... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yo Dog, I heard you like pointers so I put a pointer in your pointer and.... hey wait that actually works!
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
So, what is the point of a legal system then, or is it simply more of a charade to continue the illusion that we little poor bottom feeders actually still have a say in the matter...
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah basically that. The rich can hire the expertise and change the rules to stay out of court in the first place.
So it's a pointer, then. (Score:1)
It doesn't actually CONTAIN the content, but merely a location to GET the content.
It points to the content, not the content itself.
A pointer.
Tug-of-war (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:Tug-of-war (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:Tug-of-war (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, the concept of a republic is like well-meaning DRM, and once it's cracked you're left with a plain old oligarchy...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The key word here being ultimately, there can be several levels of misdirection.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Palpatine? Is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Shhh! You'll spoil my plans.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, blauwbaard. I thought blackbeard was a pirate, and bluebeard was a serial killing landlubber, but either way -- do you really wanna fuck with these guys?
As a hot girl with a fetish for facial hairs, I'd say yes, of course!
Re: (Score:2)
TFTFY - we all know there's no girls on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
How DARE you!! (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Bad summary, yet again: Edit ! (Score:4, Insightful)
"The penalties imposed by the court". On whom ? For what ?!
Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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'
Re: (Score:2)
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'
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No "preview", far less sales. Two sides of a coin....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you are a minority, nobody I know buys stuff after downloading and why should I, dvds are a relic of the past (not in HD), blurays to restrictive. Sure stuff gets bought, but only things I can't get/find any other way.
Re: (Score:2)
That said...
Oh, so you mean that somehow the RIAA/MPAA should be concerned about the thieves (not even gonna try and mince words here) who "love using Torrents and such", that steal all their content for free is going to now be suddenly worried about losing...that ZERO-profit section of their consumer base?
Yes, they should - Because this entire discussion misses the simple fact t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ent Industry is making a hugely stupid mistake. (Score:5, Insightful)
Downloading anything is perfectly legal in the Netherlands. Do not assume the rest of the world is ruled by companies like in the US, despite this news.
airwaves (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The only difference I see is licensing. The over-the-airwaves content is licensed for that - stuff from torrents generally is not.
That said, I believe some European countries have a tax on TVs or the likes to cover over-the-airwaves media (not sure on this, as I live in the US)
Re: (Score:1)
The Netherlands actually had this for a long time, except it was a yearly sum paid by every household that owned a tv or an apparatus that could be used as such.
These days the public channels are just taken out of the big general taxes, and over-the-airwaves media doesn't actually exist anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong, the exception is computer programs. You need a valid license to duplicate computer programs:
"Artikel 45n
De artikelen 16b en 16c zijn niet van toepassing op werken
als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 12."
This article negates 16b and 16c which grant a right to duplicate for cases like (but not limited to) study and personal use:
"Artikel 16b
1.
Als inbreu
Re: (Score:3)
"I am quite certain however that even in The Netherlands it is NOT legal to download the latest Hollywood blockbuster from an American DVD rip before it is even released on DVD on this side of the pond, even though you won't go to jail for it."
You are wrong, this is just one of the wrongs in your post:
-if it is legally obtainable _you_ can make a copy. The reason unreleased stuff isn't covered by copyright[*] is the fact that a work has to first be released by the rightful owner to be covered by copyright.
-
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they should be. Because those thieves often pay for things that support the people who hold up the *AAs... They attend concerts, buy memorabilia and swag and act as walking advertisements for the artists who create the product the AAs spend so much time and money protecting.
I don't mind that they protect the content. I *do* care they they have bought and paid for a system that operates in a "guilty until proven innocent" system where all they have to do is *accuse* someone of being a thief or b
Re: (Score:2)
...I don't mind that they protect the content. I *do* care they they have bought and paid for a system that operates in a "guilty until proven innocent" system where all they have to do is *accuse* someone of being a thief or being an accomplice to thieving to get what they want. The AAs can start legal action and sue the *downloaders* all they want, and that's perfectly allowable, legal, and nobody will complain... But when they can force entire domains offline because someone posts a link to some content without having to get so much as a warrant, that's over the line. That's why it's a problem.
But, I guess we'll see. Some artists have embraced the new world of digital distribution. Let's see how they do.
I agree that the approach to resolution is a problem. This "issue" is a river with a broken dam, flowing out of control. *AA sees it as a river with all their profits spilling out everywhere. So they send 100 people to fix the dam and plug ALL the leaks. The problem is 85% of those people have absolutely NO experience building or repairing dams, so needless to say, you're going to some "let's just nuke it and vaporize all the water!" ideas coming forth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, so you mean that somehow the RIAA/MPAA should be concerned about the thieves (not even gonna try and mince words here)
You just did. Theft deprives someone of their property, copyright infringement does not. Shoplifting a CD is stealing music, taking a file that someone else paid for and shared is not. Rather than "mincing words" you're choosing incorrect and inflammatory terminology. When you have to resort to that, your argument is an automatic failure.
All hands on deck for an emergency board meeting t
Re: (Score:2)
You just did. Theft deprives someone of their property, copyright infringement does not. Shoplifting a CD is stealing music, taking a file that someone else paid for and shared is not. Rather than "mincing words" you're choosing incorrect and inflammatory terminology. When you have to resort to that, your argument is an automatic failure.
So, we're going to split hairs over what is construed as "theft" while using terms like "pirate"? Pointless argument is pointless. I'm sure that the "someone else paid for it" defense works really well against Microsoft when pirating (sorry, I meant sharing) 150 copies of Microsoft Office around the company after buying just one. Theft is the term is use because that is how the *AA sees it. Regardless of whether people want to try and legally spin it as "copyright infringement", or "breach of licensing
Re: (Score:2)
So, we're going to split hairs over what is construed as "theft" while using terms like "pirate"?
It's hardly splitting hairs. Practical demonstration:
I STEAL your house and everything in it: You end up shivering in the rain.
I COPY your house and everything in it: You don't notice.
Do those sound practically the same to you?
Re: (Score:2)
So, we're going to split hairs over what is construed as "theft" while using terms like "pirate"?
It's hardly splitting hairs. Practical demonstration:
I STEAL your house and everything in it: You end up shivering in the rain.
I COPY your house and everything in it: You don't notice.
Do those sound practically the same to you?
Yes, that sounds as practical as it sounds viable in the real world. I grow tired of seeing this example really.
And no, the homeowner would likely not notice, at least initially. However, the homebuilder, and every company that supports them, would notice, especially if someone decided to "COPY" said house a few million times over and then sell them at 1/4th the "legitimate" price, or even give them away for free. And then the homeowner will eventually notice when he sees he paid 4x more than his neighbo
Re: (Score:2)
Seems someone (a lot of someones) have slaughtered your sacred cow.
If you bought your house during the bubble and I buy the house next door now, I might well pay only 1/4th as much, does that mean you'll decide I somehow stole from you?
What exactly did you lose because of my actions?
Copyright violation may or may not be wrong, but it is certainly not theft. It is a distinct thing. Otherwise we could just call both or them marklar.
So, marklar marklar marklar, marklar marklar marklar! Marklar?
Re: (Score:2)
Seems someone (a lot of someones) have slaughtered your sacred cow.
If you bought your house during the bubble and I buy the house next door now, I might well pay only 1/4th as much, does that mean you'll decide I somehow stole from you?
What exactly did you lose because of my actions?
Apples to oranges. You're now trying to compare a completely legitimate financial transaction that is known to ALL parties involved as to perceived value against someone stealing (or copying) your property to obtain for free or resell for ill-gained profit.
And to answer your suspicions, no there was no slaughter involved, as I purchased prior to the bubble. Doesn't mean I'm NOT going to call those responsible for the financial meltdown anything other than thieves, regardless of what the court docket might
Re: (Score:3)
Fine. Ask the person standing in the unemployment line who just got laid off due to excessive "marklar" against the company he used to work for if he sees it as somehow not theft, as his very livelihood was stolen from him.
THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!
Ask the guy laid off so the board could save a few bucks and he'll say they stole his livlihood, ready to jail them for their theft?
We can just call it all theft. Jay walking = theft of right of way. Murder = theft of life, littering = theft of cleanliness, disturbing the peace = theft of quiet, law enforcement = theft of theft.
Copyright infringement is what most people do. They make a copy for themselves without authorization. Copyright theft is what the *AA and company do, wrongfully c
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. When you call it "theft," what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
Ah, when you call it "violation", what exactly are you trying to accomplish? I'm merely pointing out the actual crime being committed in the background, while everyone else wants to dance around and continue to use generic terms like "violation". A lawyer does not walk into a courtroom and state that the defendant is innocent of "crime" and continue to refer to the criminal activities as such. Eventually, the judge is going to want to know exactly what the hell you mean by "crime".
But enough is enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, when you call it "violation", what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
Clear, unambiguous communication. You might want to see a dictionary [merriam-webster.com] if you're not clear what "violation" means. When you steal, you are violating the laws against theft. When you infringe copyright, you are violating laws against copyright.
Pirate A buys a DVD, makes a copy, and gives the copy to pirate B. Pirate B didn't steal anything, it was given to him by pirate A, who also didn't steal anything -- he paid for his copy.
It isn't
Re: (Score:2)
So, we're going to split hairs over what is construed as "theft" while using terms like "pirate"?
The pirates seem to have no problem with that label. But there is a distinction with a large difference between copyright infringement and theft. To use "theft" when nothing has been stolen is disingenuous -- in short, a LIE. If you have to resort to lies and inflammatory statements to make your case, you don't have a case to make, period.
Theft is the term is use because that is how the *AA sees it.
So you're goi
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that the "someone else paid for it" defense works really well against Microsoft when pirating (sorry, I meant sharing) 150 copies of Microsoft Office around the company after buying just one.
I don't think I would defend a money-making outfit for that, but I would certainly defend the home user buying one copy of Windows and installing it on all five computers he built. After all, my CDs aren't all tied to a single CD player. Either way, it's just ones and zeros.
Interesting theory you have on selective punishment. Do you also classify stealing a $5000 racing bicycle "no big deal" because after all, it's just a bike...it's not like a "money-making outfit" walked up and stole it that could afford the damn thing, it was just a poor little individual. After all, it's just a bike, it's not like it's somebody's car or anything.
"just ones and zeros"? Ah, that bullshit might have worked 30 years ago. What the hell tied up in litigation today isn't related to "ones and
Re: (Score:2)
Do you also classify stealing a $5000 racing bicycle "no big deal" because after all, it's just a bike
No, but I would have no objection to your making a copy of my $5000 racing bike, even if it cost you nothing to make that copy. If you take my bike I no longer have a bike, but why should I object to you copying it?
Makes me weep to be an American... (Score:5, Insightful)
Our only choices are "In the pocket of the MPAA" and "In the pocket of the MPAA"...oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Again, no... (Score:2)
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".
Blockade is useless anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Even if it was shut down, they couldn't ever shut everything else down. There's simply too many websites. I guess they could shut down a few more websites if they eliminated all due process (which is, of course, a terrible idea, but not above them), but they still wouldn't get very far.
(/. modfail3)-1 Re:mod UP (Score:2)
-1 offtopic, troll, spam