Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Pirate Bay Ordered To Block Dutch Users

Soulskill posted about 5 years ago | from the can't-catch-a-break dept.

The Courts 255

secmartin writes "In a totally unexpected ruling, a Dutch court has decided that The Pirate Bay should block visitors from the Netherlands within 10 days or face a fine of €30,000 per defendant per day. Peter Sunde has already announced that he will appeal the ruling. Even though the defendants sent a letter explaining that they were unable to come to the hearing and provided arguments in their favor, these were ignored by the judge because they failed to appear in his court. The full text of the ruling was just published (in Dutch, PDF) by Peter Sunde, and further coverage is available at Forbes."

cancel ×

255 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Failure to appear in court... (5, Funny)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 5 years ago | (#28884149)

... is a big deal in most courts, as far as I know.

Even for something like a traffic ticket, if the cop doesn't show up in court, you're let off... (in the US anyways)

Re:Failure to appear in court... (3, Insightful)

El Jynx (548908) | about 5 years ago | (#28884307)

It's a bit more interesting than that, though. BREIN was actually sueing the company that was planning to take over TPB, expecting an easier grant from the judge (which they got). This opens the door to forcing ISP's to block certain websites, something which BREIN has been trying for but has hitherto miserably failed at. This is all just a sham to set up jurisprudence to slowly swing the courts in their favor. I think I'm gonna go BREINwash their CEO.

Isn't there an easy solution to this? (3, Interesting)

Hojima (1228978) | about 5 years ago | (#28884381)

Put up a page for all Dutch users saying that they have been banned, then provide links on how to circumvent the ban. Any lawyer here know if they can get away with that?

Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884493)

Yeah, cuz Courts are especially known for being that dumb and putting up with jackassery.

Seriously, you pull that shit, there's going to be arrest warrants out for contempt violations, and that means you're going to at the least, be courting extradition.

Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | about 5 years ago | (#28885049)

No, but someone *else* could post those instructions.

Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? (4, Funny)

corbettw (214229) | about 5 years ago | (#28885521)

Maybe someone should provide the instructions in a torrent.

Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? (4, Interesting)

Jurily (900488) | about 5 years ago | (#28885553)

Could someone please explain to me what authority a Dutch court has on a Swedish site?

Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? (3, Funny)

Anachragnome (1008495) | about 5 years ago | (#28884537)

IANAL and I know that is a bad idea. (wow. almost spelled that "I ANAL")

There are legal means of addressing the situation, and contempt of court is not one of them.

Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 5 years ago | (#28884855)

There are legal means of addressing the situation, and contempt of court is not one of them.

Yes, but they're not nearly as effective as the extra-legal means. The system is designed to create the illusion of recourse for individuals, while protecting the power of corporations.

Yes, dissolve the EU. (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 5 years ago | (#28884837)

I guess there's something to be said for sovereignty. Seems the main effect of the European Union has been to limit individual rights.

Re:Isn't there an easy solution to this? (1)

spazdor (902907) | about 5 years ago | (#28884859)

I don't have the mod points to 'insightful' you, so instead I'll chime in that I think you have exactly the right response.

Things like country-bans are circumventable by the very nature of what the Internet is. Comply 100% with the court order, while loudly demonstrating its ineffectuality.

Re:Failure to appear in court... (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | about 5 years ago | (#28884309)

Generally if you fail to appear without a good reason you can be found in default and lose automatically.

Which is a bad thing if you, you know, don't actually want to lose.

Re:Failure to appear in court... (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 years ago | (#28884573)

BUT, most courts require proof you were served with papers to appear at court.

Honestly the Judge is the jackass here. If they were properly served and responded with "we cant make the court date" the judge cant do this.

Otherwise, I could sue every one of you in court, and if you did not know of the court case, would not show up, and I would automatically win.

The whole story is not there.

Re:Failure to appear in court... (4, Informative)

Zsub (1365549) | about 5 years ago | (#28884775)

Not true. BREIN have argued that several pages where they put up the notice were visited by IP addresses belonging to TPB. Also it was the judge's opinion that it would have been quite impossible not to notice the media commotion around this hearing.

I personally find the latter point somewhat dubitable: why the heck would they follow Dutch news anyway, but the former point is to me somewhat more convincing.

One also has to note by the way that the entire Dutch IT-crowd has their panties in a bunch over this, because our Christfaggy government earlier announced plans to introduce a filter not entirely different from the thing the Australian wants. Many see this as an important first step towards that goal and a very large step back for our freedom and society.

Re:Failure to appear in court... (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 5 years ago | (#28884807)

Nice try, but sending a letter which states, "We are not able to attend," is proof that you received the summons. Of course it's bad form to just not show-up. That's considered an insult to the judge because you're wasting his time, and the proper thing would have been to ask for a postponement to a more-convenient time.

I think what we're witnessing here is a bunch of arrogant people who don't realize that pissing-off the judge tends to sway him to rule against you. If the Piratebay took a different tactic, like your typical politician of smiling even when you're filled with hate, they could probably convince the judge to come-over to their side.

"Play the victim" is also a valid tactic. - Poor, defenseless citizens being attacked by a big billion-dollar corporation. "C'mon judge, we'll be smashed like bugs if you don't help us out."

Re:Failure to appear in court... (3, Informative)

lacoronus (1418813) | about 5 years ago | (#28884897)

From the English translation of the verdict:

2.3 From the productions deliverd by the prosecution it can be seen that de prosecution has tried to use the central organisation for summoning in Sweden but this didn't work. After this they tried a swedish bailiff which also failed.

2.4 In cases like this a judge can still allow the prosecution to continue if it's plausible that the summoned somehow still did see the summoning even though they never have been officially reached to hand them the summoning.

The prosecution sent mails to the email adresses of the prosecuted and the official owner of thepiratebay.org on 19 and 23 juni 2009. It's plausible the summoned did read the emails since the prosecution have received an email from 1 of these email adresses on 6th may 2009 in which the prosecution has told them they were going to sue.

The prosecution has also sent summonings by facebook and twitter. In these messages were special links to click on to see the swedish translations. Someone with an ip adress from the piratebay has visited this website. The summoned have declared to multiple media that they did not receive a summoning and so that they were not informed. The prosecution does not believe this.

...and evidently the court didn't believe it either. Seems like the usual level of legal skills displayed by TPB. First they have their heads handed to them in Swedish court, now the same has happened with a Dutch court. These people had better get a better legal team, because as it stands now they're being annihilated due to own stupidity - or more likely, by repeatedly basing their defense on a belief that judges are gullible.

I can't help but believe that TPB keeps making these idiot mistakes because they think they're smarter than the court. "Oh we never received the summons because you can't prove it, nyah!" "Well, according to the law, you should have, and according to the law, we can proceed as if you had."

Re:Failure to appear in court... (4, Informative)

Animaether (411575) | about 5 years ago | (#28885019)

The judge can, and will, do this.

In point 1.2 the judge established that the defendants had written an undated letter saying that the defendants will not be showing up in court. In point 1.3 the judge established that seeing as they wrote the letter, it is ridiculous to claim that they were in fact -not- aware of the proceedings before them, and the motions for dismissal thus be struck down; after all, they could have either been present just fine or have sent representation.

Further, they judge accepts the evidence by BREIN, that they followed:
- the official paths of notification (point 2.3; going through swedish authorities, and through a Swedish bailiff)
- unofficial paths (point 2.4)
-- e-mail to the defendants' e-mail address
--- (the judge and accepted the evidence by BREIN that one of the defendants -had- replied from one of the e-mail addresses written to as late as May 6th, in response to a notification about this very case (again, point 2.4) )
-- e-mail the domain holder's e-mail address)
-- wrote to the lawyers who had represented the defendants in a recent court case
-- registered mail, containing the subpoena in Swdish) to each of the defendants addresses.
--- (the judge accepted evidence by BREIN, from the courier service, that the mail was delivered)
-- a Twitter post
-- a Facebook post
--- (for the curious: whether or not these are reasonable venues for notification has yet to be determined. In the case a defendant can't be found, the posting in newspapers and such -is- acceptable. It is likely that the above two are found to be acceptable as well)

As a result, the judge once again surmises (still in point 2.4) that it is not likely that the defendants were -not- (timely) aware of these proceedings, and most certainly -could- have been present, or represented, in court.

Re:Failure to appear in court... (4, Insightful)

Atrox666 (957601) | about 5 years ago | (#28884619)

It's also a DUTCH court..they are not Dutch and do not own a Dutch business. This Judge is out of his juristdiction and can basicly go blow himself.

Re:Failure to appear in court... (2, Insightful)

moonbender (547943) | about 5 years ago | (#28884843)

Both are EU countries. Not sure if that has any relevance here, IANAL.

Re:Failure to appear in court... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28885215)

In reply to your sig: qemu and doxbox both have mouse/keyboard "grab" options (with some key combination to escape grab). You are unclear if you want to create your own program with that feature or if you are trying to add it to VirtualBox (I have never used VirtualBox, but I would be very surprised if it did not have mouse grab).

Re:Failure to appear in court... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 5 years ago | (#28884851)

That's like saying I can ignore a ruling from a New York judge because I live in Maryland. That tactic might work at first, but the case will merely escalate to the U.S. level and I'll be in serious trouble.

Same applies here. If they don't comply, then the case will escalate to the E.U. level. There's a chance the higher court might reject the case and refuse to hear it, but you're still taking a big gamble.

Re:Failure to appear in court... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28885447)

Not exactly, if TPB doesnÂt comply, the case doesn't have to escalate to the E.U., as the dutch ruling is, by itself, an executive order in the whole E.U., so the demandant just need to ask the swedish system of justice to execute the order.

Re:Failure to appear in court... (2, Interesting)

Animaether (411575) | about 5 years ago | (#28885227)

Provided the ruling stands in appeals (and they could appeal all the way up to the EU courts, of course), you're right.. the judges can be told to blow themselves until the Swedish authorities hand down the rulings.

However, in the mean time...
- if they appear in The Netherlands, they can be arrested.
- if they continue to not block the Dutch, then BREIN may have a case for Dutch -ISPs- to block TPB as alternative means of getting TPB blocked.

Foreign sites have been blocked before - think gambling sites - based on Dutch law and court cases, so it's not entirely unthinkable.

Re:Failure to appear in court... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884373)

You also have to be notified. Which they weren't.

Re:Failure to appear in court... (1)

nitsew (991812) | about 5 years ago | (#28884409)

Actually failure to appear can be a big deal, even with some traffic tickets. It varies state to state, but most places will require your appearance for excessive speeding, reckless driving, DUI, etc.

When a driver fails to appear in court on misdemeanor traffic offenses If a person is charged with a misdemeanor traffic offense and fails to appear in court, in most instances the following will occur: * the judge will issue a warrant for that person's arrest; * the bail deposited will be forfeited and the case will be continued for the entry of a judgment of the bond forfeiture; and * the Clerk of the Circuit Court will notify the defendant of the new court date.

From: http://www.cookcountycourt.org/traffic_court/traffic_ticket/appear.html [cookcountycourt.org]

Re:Failure to appear in court... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884613)

The reason a the ticket will be thrown out is because you have a constitutional right to confront you accuser. The cop is not the prosecutor, he is just a witness.

Ok... so how do you tell? (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | about 5 years ago | (#28884213)

How are you going to get users to take the How Dutch Am I [okcupid.com] test before accessing the web page?

Re:Ok... so how do you tell? (2, Insightful)

ickleberry (864871) | about 5 years ago | (#28884469)

"Neuken in de keuken" does not mean any of the things listed there :)

Re:Ok... so how do you tell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28885015)

And Anne Frank is both 'a jewish girl that died in WOII' and 'someone who wrote a populair diary'. I am Dutch and I only got 91%...

Hmmm (2)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | about 5 years ago | (#28884243)

If the court didn't provide for his travel expenses I think it would be unfair to expect them to appear in court at such an early date.

Eternal September (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884245)

...is just a month and a day away. All of USENET trembles at the flood of message-board/autogenerated flooding that is about to take place.

will the prosecution ever cease? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884247)

they seem to be getting cornered. I wonder how this affects their hosting provider.

Proxies, anyone? (5, Insightful)

Bangmaker (1420175) | about 5 years ago | (#28884263)

How would TBP know that the visitors were from the Netherlands anyway? As far as I know, there is not much to go buy other than an IP address, which can easily be hidden by almost any proxy.

Re:Proxies, anyone? (2, Interesting)

Tx (96709) | about 5 years ago | (#28884495)

It may be easy for a nerd to install e.g. SwitchProxy, and knock together some scripts to automate the maintenance of a list of working anonymizing proxy servers (and by the way, any old proxy is not good enough), but it's not that easy for Joe Public. Unless they're going to pay for a vpn service, the vast majority of Dutch people will be accurately blocked by their IP address. And since accessing TPB is not a fundamental human right, the tiny amount of collateral damage will be seen as insignificant.

Re:Proxies, anyone? (1)

causality (777677) | about 5 years ago | (#28884759)

It may be easy for a nerd to install e.g. SwitchProxy, and knock together some scripts to automate the maintenance of a list of working anonymizing proxy servers (and by the way, any old proxy is not good enough), but it's not that easy for Joe Public. Unless they're going to pay for a vpn service, the vast majority of Dutch people will be accurately blocked by their IP address. And since accessing TPB is not a fundamental human right, the tiny amount of collateral damage will be seen as insignificant.

True, but this is a crowd that's rather well-known for their ability to circumvent restrictions.

Re:Proxies, anyone? (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | about 5 years ago | (#28884513)

yes. this is a "line in the sand" type of ruling more than anything. anybody can use tor or other proxy to circumvent the ruling.

Re:Proxies, anyone? (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | about 5 years ago | (#28884515)

Then anyone using a proxy will be assumed by the courts to be from the Netherlands, and the due fines will be charged, else face forfeiture posessions and/or imprisonment and/or penalty of being legally barred from the internet for a period of time decided by the courts.

Proxies don't help much if you're in jail.

Re:Proxies, anyone? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 5 years ago | (#28885047)

>>>Then anyone using a proxy will be assumed by the courts to be from the Netherlands, and the due fines will be charged

False.

Piratebay's lawyers would argue that if Dutch citizens are presenting fake representation (i.e. claiming to be from France or Spain), then those private citizens are the ones who should be prosecuted for counterfeiting et cetera. The website owners acted in good faith to the best of their ability to block *.nl domains and comply with the order, therefore they are not guilty.

If the judge disagreed, then just appeal. Any superior court will declare the website is not liable when a Dutch citizen falsifies his address to disguise himself as some other nationality, just as a store is not liable if you show them a fake drivers license.

Re:Proxies, anyone? (5, Interesting)

Artraze (600366) | about 5 years ago | (#28884521)

Well, the obvious solution is to put a "What country do you live in?" dropdown on the front page. Thus you no longer have to worry about IP addresses and all that. Sure the users may lie, but that's their problem...

Re:Proxies, anyone? (1)

The Moof (859402) | about 5 years ago | (#28884541)

I'm not even sure if you're allowed to legislate what a website must do if it's not in your own country. Maybe things are different in the EU? (I'm an American.. and yea, I know that statement smacks of irony given where I live) Usually the approach attempting censoring the net for your citizens is to filter at your own border.

Re:Proxies, anyone? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | about 5 years ago | (#28884975)

I doubt you could make it stick. One EU country can't force another EU country to do something like that, otherwise eg. Germany would have all nazi sites banned in France.

What they can do is force dutch ISPs to block it.. which creates legal precedent if it goes through.

banana-eating jungle monkeys (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884819)

They can get arrested when they start tossing poop at police officers.

Perhaps, this episode will entirely derail the nation changing health care reform plans.

Failure to appear is an insult (2, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | about 5 years ago | (#28884271)

The judge was clearly pissed off that nobody showed up. If you can't make it, you at least have an attorney put in an appearance. When nobody shows up there isn't much you can do and the judge is going to be pissed off. It is like you are questioning the validity of the court.

And that is a really bad beginning to something you would like to win.

Re:Failure to appear is an insult (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884371)

Yeah, generally not showing up ensures you'll loose and pisses off judges as it wastes their time.

However, what does a fine/summons from another country really mean? I could care less if I get a summons from another country and their ability to collect isn't really there.

Re:Failure to appear is an insult (4, Funny)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | about 5 years ago | (#28884681)

Hello Friend,

This is an order to appear before the Nigerian High Court for fraud charges that have been perpetrated against you. I am a widow and also the judge of the court and have asked that you appear to prosecute the man who stole your identity. The fine for that in Nigeria is $600,000,000 (SIX HUNDRED MILLION US DOLLARS) and if you appear in court, we will award you 1% of the damages, which is $6,000,000 (SIX MILLION US DOLLARS) as a token of thanks for your time and honor to justice. Please call the number below in order to verify your plans to assist us with this trial.

God Bless,
Frank Liu Xiong
+34.37.342.34209
866 Muskrat Way
Habubajab
Nigeria

Re:Failure to appear is an insult (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28885483)

it's a scam! that phone number is country code +34, which is spain.

Re:Failure to appear is an insult (1)

hattig (47930) | about 5 years ago | (#28884581)

Interestingly, the news came as a total surprise to Fredrik, Gottfrid and Peter who said they received no official summons and were not aware of the case.

From one of the linked articles that you read.

Re:Failure to appear is an insult (2, Interesting)

Dahamma (304068) | about 5 years ago | (#28885101)

The validity of the court SHOULD be questioned! I mean, they gave summons via *Twitter*! What kind of a kangaroo court is that?

Besides, it's a Dutch court asking a Swedish citizen to appear regarding a Swedish website. If you received a "summons" from a Chinese court to appear for violating their demands that you block all of their citizens from viewing your website, would you appear?

Court ruling in english (5, Informative)

SRabbelier (1608799) | about 5 years ago | (#28884275)

Remcokatz on twitter [twitter.com] was nice enough to translate the verdict into english and put the result on [drop.io] .

But I'm confused... (1)

ringbarer (545020) | about 5 years ago | (#28884277)

I thought the Netherlands had progressive drug legislation. Which, as every internet forum commentator can tell you, is the cure for all of Society's ills.

Now that the Netherlands has been proven, by rule of <TEXTAREA>, to be completely perfect in every way, then why would the Dutch want to download files illegally?

Netherlands Antilles Residents? (2, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 5 years ago | (#28884285)

In a totally unexpected ruling, a Dutch court has decided that The Pirate Bay should block visitors from the Netherlands within 10 days or face a fine of â30,000 per defendant per day.

What about residents on islands like Sint Maartin [wikipedia.org] in the Netherlands Antilles [wikipedia.org] ? Blocking by IP address could get a little more complicated considering the Northern half of that island is French.

I'm amazed... (1, Flamebait)

benjfowler (239527) | about 5 years ago | (#28884311)

... at the vast resources the record and movie companies are pouring into their litigation jihad against TPB. Good lawyers don't exactly grow on trees.

Clearly, they see piracy -- as a political movement -- as an existential threat to their business, and are prepared to do absolutely anything to kill it.

Reckon that the record companies would engage in outright criminality to fight their enemies? Given their penchant for suing defenceless, computer-illiterate single mums and kids, there's definitely a whiff of Big Tobacco or United Fruit there...

Re:I'm amazed... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884535)

yes because a computer illiterate mom, who is not illiterate enough to use the computer, failed to reason that downloading and sharing music or whatever type of data files for FREE is illegal.

I'm amazed at your fucking idiotic argument and do I like record companies, no but I do like intellectual property rights, its one of the few things that allows nobodys to become somebodys unless some tool like you thinks my data "wants to be free".

When Ayn Rand kicks you in the balls you'll know what I mean, until then continue with the Free biz model and continue to wonder where your prosperity went, dumbshit

Re:I'm amazed... (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 5 years ago | (#28884639)

Somebody needs a hug.

BTW, you're probably thinking of John Galt. Nice try anyway.

Re:I'm amazed... (1)

groslyunderpaid (950152) | about 5 years ago | (#28884951)

Do you drive above 65mph in a 65mph zone?

Re:I'm amazed... (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | about 5 years ago | (#28885165)

yes because a computer illiterate mom, who is not illiterate enough to use the computer, failed to reason that downloading and sharing music or whatever type of data files for FREE is illegal.

It took quite a bit of explaining to get my sister (who is only somewhat computer literate) to understand why downloading music via filesharing networks is illegal.

To a lot of people, if it's easy to download, it must be legal - and if it's free, so much the better. After all, they believe, if it weren't legal, it wouldn't be available!

Feel free to believe everyone else has a good understanding of the internet and the legal system; as for me, I just correct misconceptions as I find them.

Re:I'm amazed... (1)

an unsound mind (1419599) | about 5 years ago | (#28885351)

Y'know, there are plentiful things you can download and share for free.

Ever heard of Creative Commons for example?

They should refuse (2, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | about 5 years ago | (#28884341)

The Pirate Bay should refuse to heed that request/order on grounds that it is undemocratic to discriminate against users on the basis of religion, ethnicity, nationality or otherwise. Who can argue against that?

What we need to do ... (5, Interesting)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 5 years ago | (#28884343)

What we need to do, is get a US judge to order the Dutch Judge to over turn the ruling or face a fine of $100,000(US) for every Dutch user that is prevented from accessing the Pirate Bay. ...

On a side note, does the Judge realize that a simple proxy server can bypass his ruling? There is NO WAY to enforce such a stupid ruling. The Technically Illiterate should not be making what amounts to a new law regarding Technological issues.

This whole thing would be silly if the pointy headed elites weren't involved. Is it me, or are they (pointy headed elites) some of the stupidest people on the planet or what?

Re:What we need to do ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884597)

Ah, but there's a foolproof way to implement this: just ask on the front page "are you dutch"?

Proxies can't get around that, my friend! And no false-positives either! Of course, dutch citizens may lie, but that's a matter for dutch law enforcement to deal with, not TBP.

Re:What we need to do ... (0, Redundant)

MrMista_B (891430) | about 5 years ago | (#28884615)

A simple proxy server can /not/ bypass his ruling, and will do /nothing/ to prevent enforcement of the ruling.

Anyone using a proxy will be assumed by the courts to be from the Netherlands, and the due fines will be charged, else face forfeiture posessions and/or imprisonment and/or penalty of being legally barred from the internet for a period of time decided by the courts.

Proxies don't help much if you're in jail.

Re:What we need to do ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28885021)

^ LOL

Re:What we need to do ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884663)

They should add "are you Dutch?" quiz at their front page. If they select "yes", it goes to page X.

I think that solution is the best there is out there.

Re:What we need to do ... (1)

rdavidson3 (844790) | about 5 years ago | (#28884721)

A couple of months ago, I would've argued that joe-six-pack wouldn't know what a proxy-server is and how to use it, but after seeing what was happening in Iran over the last couple of months I think maybe joe-six-pack is more web savvy than I gave him credit for.

Could the netherlands follow Iran's footsteps and show that the Judge doesn't get it?

Re:What we need to do ... (2, Interesting)

Plunky (929104) | about 5 years ago | (#28885191)

A couple of months ago, I would've argued that joe-six-pack wouldn't know what a proxy-server is and how to use it, but after seeing what was happening in Iran over the last couple of months I think maybe joe-six-pack is more web savvy than I gave him credit for.

In the UK, I believe most children are educated by their fellows about proxies because the school administrators block all kinds of chat servers that they need to access all the time.

To dutch users (3, Funny)

jerep (794296) | about 5 years ago | (#28884355)

you are now required to use a proxy to access our website, we apologize for the inconvenience.

Legal? (3, Insightful)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about 5 years ago | (#28884379)

Do they even live in the Netherlands? Are their servers in the Netherlands? If not, why should they care what they want them to do?

Re:Legal? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884527)

They should not care. By international laws the location of the servers ("service") defines the laws and the (location of) court used to settle disputes. The only other route for IP related issues is by using WTO, which is extremely unlikely (requires actual political will from top brass).

Re:Legal? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | about 5 years ago | (#28885027)

In theory it could be bounced to the EU court, but that moves at the speed of a glacier.. the *AA will have crumbled to dust before the lawyers have even got as far as the 50th volume of the ruling...

Re:Legal? (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | about 5 years ago | (#28885131)

IIRC Switzerland isn't part of the EU.

Re:Legal? (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | about 5 years ago | (#28885197)

Also, /. really needs a delete key, since TPB is based out of Sweden.

Re:Legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884553)

Exactly. In what way are the guys behind The Pirate Bay forced to comply with this? Why don't they just fire away one of their standard "We are Swedish. You are not. Sucks to be you."-emails?

Re:Legal? (0)

Important Remark (1604945) | about 5 years ago | (#28885083)

The server is not the issue. The judge ruled that copyright infringement is made (also) in the netherlands, and that TPB act as a broker to that copyright infringement. Since TPB didn't even bother to contradict that... they lost. Since they didn't even gave the judge a chance to ask them weather blocking dutch access was possible or not, they lost on that one too. Now it is _their_ problem how to obey with that. Not showing up is just a stupid strategy...

Re:Legal? (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | about 5 years ago | (#28885323)

No, its a sound strategy. As long as they never set foot in the Netherlands no ruling can possibly hurt them, do to being completely unenforceable.

The dumbest thing they could possibly do is show up so that the judge can order them detained until they comply.

Re:Legal? (2, Informative)

lacoronus (1418813) | about 5 years ago | (#28885363)

Are their servers in the Netherlands?

I believe they still have some servers there. Not the main ones, but they do have a presence in the Netherlands (trackers?). It started when they were raided way back in '06 (?) and had to move the whole operation there. Since then they moved back to Sweden, but I vaguely recall them still having some hardware there.

ns2.thepiratebay.org is in the Netherlands, for example.

IPREDator (1)

TheOrangeMan (884380) | about 5 years ago | (#28884399)

And what happens if you're Dutch and use IPREDator to access the Pirate Bay? I doubt they built a "dutch backdoor" into that.

Re:IPREDator (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | about 5 years ago | (#28884473)

I doubt they built a "dutch backdoor" into that.

Of course not. They built a dutch oven into it.

For those that don't know what a dutch oven is, please look it up.

Dutch article on subject (1)

raketman11 (807813) | about 5 years ago | (#28884437)

And In Other News (5, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 years ago | (#28884529)

Seattle, WA - The Kingdom of the Netherlands has been ordered to pay Irving Schwartzmizzlegub $50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for causing his pet cockerspanial , Peppy-dee, to die. Judge Thomas Hikemyjacksbitchpeople awarded Schwartzmizzlegub the large sum because, in his own words "These fucking people live by dikes, and I got Herpes in Amsterdam when I was 20."

Schwartzmizzlegub alleged that the osmotic psychowaves emanating from several Dutch cities caused little Peppy-dee to spiral into canine depression, prostitute himself at a nearby 7-11, and ultimately take his own life by leaping into the Slurpee machine.

The large size of the award is assumed to be because the Kingdom of the Netherlands never appeared in court. A representative of the Dutch ambassador tried to explain that countries can't actually move, but the judge rejected that, called the Ambassador's representative "a sub-German freek" and made the award.

Schwartzmizzlegub is planning to use the money to clone Elvis and make him into a sex-slave.

This article is protected by nuclear technology by AP

Re:And In Other News (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884625)

Posting Anon for Moderation. I had a hard time choosing between funny and insightful. It certainly seems like its not far from reality at this point. Globalization sucks. :(

Easy solution to that ... (3, Funny)

MartinSchou (1360093) | about 5 years ago | (#28884549)

Step 1) Make a blanket rule on any IP resolving to a .NL address
Step 2) The rule presents the users with the following message:

Dear user

Thanks to a ruling from a Dutch court [drop.io] , we are required to prevent anyone from the Netherlands not using a proxy to mask their country [google.com] from using our site.

Kind regards
The Staff

Alright, the last link might be a bit much, but still ...

Unexpected ? (1)

lbalbalba (526209) | about 5 years ago | (#28884641)

Whaddayamean, unexpected ? Wasn't this totally to be expected, as their doing essentially the same stuff as napster et al used to do in the past ? And got sued for ? And lost ?

Re:Unexpected ? (1)

Tridus (79566) | about 5 years ago | (#28884701)

Yeah, it doesn't really seem unexpected. TPB talks big when doing interviews, but they don't do nearly so well in court. I suspect the end is nigh for them, and they know it.

Re:Unexpected ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884971)

Can't you RTFA at least? They didn't even know about the case.

Twitter summons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884707)

The verdict states that the guys behind TPB were summoned through Twitter. Can anyone dig up these tweets? It'd also be interesting to se where they came from...

The Netherlands invaded Sweden? (4, Informative)

houghi (78078) | about 5 years ago | (#28884737)

I would think that is the bigger headline here. Otherwise, how could a Dutch court demand anything from a Swedish company?

Or perhaps they should demand the legal drinking age [wikipedia.org] in the US to be 16.

And the irony is that downloading is legal in the Netherlands, just not uploading.

Do not mess with pirates (1)

Important Remark (1604945) | about 5 years ago | (#28884751)

This [sacbee.com] is what the dutch got from it

Easy (1)

lalena (1221394) | about 5 years ago | (#28884773)

The Pirate Bay should block visitors from the Netherlands

Are you from the Netherlands?
No.
Welcome.

â30 or â30.000? (1)

nickruiz (1185947) | about 5 years ago | (#28884871)

In a totally unexpected ruling, a Dutch court has decided that The Pirate Bay should block visitors from the Netherlands within 10 days or face a fine of â30,000 per defendant per day.

FYI, if you write â30,000, you really mean â30, because the EU swaps comma notation with decimal notation. According to the article, the fine is â30.000 per defendant per day, which is a ridiculously high number.

Re:â30 or â30.000? (1)

maxume (22995) | about 5 years ago | (#28885479)

€30,000 is perfectly cromulent in the U.S.

â30.000 doesn't even make sense.

Bloody Dutch ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28884873)

Those bastards should be banned - weren't the Dutch the ones that started pirating [yahoo.com] on other countries ? And now they choose to attack our pirates !

Oops, I'm Dutch.

International Law? (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | about 5 years ago | (#28884909)

IANAL -- but this seems pretty insane that a foreign court can demand that you appear and then begin assessing damages against you. Can someone more knowledgeable please clarify, this seems really bizarre and has staggering implications (websites being liable to obey every single local law across the globe).

Re:International Law? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | about 5 years ago | (#28885077)

No of course they can't, for exactly the reason you state.

Fun Facts (3, Funny)

Hunter0000 (1600071) | about 5 years ago | (#28884911)

Now I know there is a limit on the fine, but for the sake of ridiculousness...

Population of the Netherlands, 16,500,156
Fine per person per day, US $42,300
GDP of Sweden, US $484,550,000,000

Number of years required for the entire economic output of Sweden to pay back for a week of TPB usage by the entire Netherlands, 10

Where do they come up with these damn numbers?

the other direction (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 5 years ago | (#28884923)

Wouldn't it make more sense that if the Dutch jurisdiction doesn't want the traffic to/from X to tell providers to not allow connections to X rather than to tell X "we don't want your service".

Either way, as mentioned above proxy servers refute the quest. I like the word quest.

Unable to go != unwilling to go (2, Interesting)

QX-Mat (460729) | about 5 years ago | (#28885097)

I read the rough translation over at http://drop.io/breinpaidforthis_english [drop.io]

The only bit interesting was:

1.3 Since they summoned did not show up at the summoning they can now not fall back on the letter they have sent from 27th of juli 2009. Since they have said they were not going to be in court at the date appointed they can not fall back on not knowing about the summoning (article 142, lawbook of the netherlands Civil rights)

In most jurisdictions, if hold yourself out as intentionally disobeying an order of the court, they can throw the book at you in your absense. It all hinges on how the judge decides to interpret your letter of intent - they can be strict and litteral, or understanding and wide. Saying you will not be attending is very different to being unable to attend, regardless of whatever else said. Consider, "I am unable to attend the meeting because a family member has died and I am at the funeral at that time. I will not come." and "[at that time]. Please rearrange meeting". The latter indicates intent to come, whereas the former does not.

I find it hard to believe that they don't have prescribed methods of good notice - ie: in the UK good notice can be at their abode, registered address, or place of work. Only when you have "good notice" can you reply on preceedures in absense.

Matt

Why didn't China think of this? (1)

Talla (95956) | about 5 years ago | (#28885287)

Just fine everybody who gives any Chinese citizen information the Chinese government don't want them to have.

No dutch folks (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 5 years ago | (#28885377)

How about couples who are actually dating?

Is the judge Nigel Powers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28885407)

Incidentally, the court also hates people who are intolerant of other people's cultures.

www.anti-piracy.nl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28885449)

Here in the Netherlands, I've tried several times to reach the website of BREIN which claims to be an authority on these matters, to learn more about this issue. I've been trying for weeks actually, but every single time I click on anti-piracy.nl [anti-piracy.nl] the server fails to acknowledge my request.

FWIW, I'd really like to be a customer of Netflix, Hulu, and/or Pandora, but those sites are also blocked for me here in the Netherlands, and to-date I've seen nothing offered in comparison to purchase or support via advertising.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>