×

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!

Belgian Court Order May Be Too Specific To Actually Block Pirate Bay Domain

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the not-responsible-for-thinkographic-errors dept.

Censorship 140

bs0d3 writes "Recently, many people from Belgium have been joining The Pirate Bay's and Telecomix's IRC channels, asking for help with the Telecomix DNS, saying that it doesn't work to access www.thepiratebay.org. This is true. The court was very specific in its order, which was to block the domains www.thepiratebay.org, www.thepiratebay.net, www.thepiratebay.com, www.thepiratebay.nu, www.thepiratebay.se, www.piratebay.no, and www.ripthepiratebay.com, or else face a daily penalty of 1000 EUR for every day when defendants do not implement such 'DNS-blocking' in their DNS-servers'. So, obviously in defiance of that, people testing their DNS servers go to the domain www.thepiratebay.org — except, thepiratebay doesn't have the www domain turned on. At one point it redirected to the main page, at the URL thepiratebay.org; now it doesn't, probably because of negligence from the admins. What's interesting is that the court only ordered the block of the www subdomains, so if an ISP wants to make a fuss they should be able to avoid the penalties until a later ruling."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

140 comments

Don't bother clicking TFA (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651116)

Don't bother clicking on TFA, it's the exact same thing that's in the summary, no more content, no less content.

Re:Don't bother clicking TFA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651154)

Don't read this... it is a curse...

In 2006, a little boy named Zach was sitting in the back seat of his mother's car whilst they were driving home from the grocery store. In his arms, he held a ventriloquist dummy named Slappy. Zach was rocking Slappy back and forth in his arms as if Slappy was a baby. Then, suddenly, he tried to throw Slappy out the window. However, Slappy latched onto the side of the car and climbed back in faster than Zach could even believe! Zach apologized profusely and Slappy eventually forgave him.

Then, when Zach finally arrived home, he somehow locked Slappy in his mom's car, ran up on his porch, and then proceeded to point at Slappy and laugh at the seemingly hopeless situation that he was in. This action proved to be a mistake, however. In an event that completely took Zach by surprise, Slappy turned into a twinkling star that couldn't have been much bigger than a few inches, flew directly through the car door, and then went right into Zach's bootyass!

Still stunned at this unexpected development, Zach heard Slappy saying, from the inside of his bootyass, "Iiiiiiit's suuuuuuuuuuuppeeeer tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime!" Then, before Zach could even react to those malice-filled words, Slappy began saying, "rarara!" Slappy was consuming all of the feces in Zach's bootyass, inflicting major tickle upon it! Zach, in a desperate attempt to make the tickle stop, ran into his mom's garden and began rubbing dirt in his face. The tickle, however, only worsened...

Now that you have read this (even a single word of it), Slappy will turn into a twinkling star, fly into your bootyass, and then consume all of the feces inside it (inflicting major tickle upon your bootyass)! To prevent this from happening, copy and paste this entire comment and then repost it as a comment three times.

Re:Don't bother clicking TFA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651610)

I hope you get a horrific cancer that causes your facial features to be wiped out, making you look repugnant so that even your mother has to look away and small children aren't allowed in the room as your body slowly gives away, you evil pathetic pervert.

Re:Don't bother clicking TFA (3, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651166)

This is slashdot no one bothers to read the TFA

Re:Don't bother clicking TFA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651554)

I read TFA once, you insensitive clod!

It wasn't worth it, btw.

Re:Don't bother clicking TFA (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651462)

Then it would appear that for once, /. has a good summary. Not every "story" needs to be 4 or 5 pages long anyway.

Re:Don't bother clicking TFA (2)

bs0d3 (2439278) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651596)

ya, apparently the law allows me to copy/paste my own articles without asking myself permission

Re:Don't bother clicking TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651732)

Oh, so this is just blogspam, then?

Re:Don't bother clicking TFA (1)

bs0d3 (2439278) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651754)

oh, i dont care if you go to the blog or not from here, just thought it was a funny story to share

lol DNS blocking (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651134)

Of course you could always change your DNS to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 and avoid DNS blocking entirely...

Re:lol DNS blocking (2)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651182)

Of course you could always change your DNS to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 and avoid DNS blocking entirely...

Running your own caching DNS server is so ridiculously easy, I'm surprised so many people trust $MEGACORP to do it for them. Don't get me wrong, in terms of load on the root servers it works for me that most others aren't doing this. I enjoy lots of things that would go away if everyone did it.

It's a shame that assuming responsibility of your own experience where it is reasonable to do so isn't precisely popular. We place far too much trust in random strangers to do too many things for us that we could do ourselves. This isn't at all like trying to be your own doctor or electrician, where the result could be quite disastrous. Still, if Establishment/authoritarian types start thinking that DNS is their one-stop solution for easy censorship, local caching DNS servers may become more common. Failing that, there are foreign proxies.

Re:lol DNS blocking (5, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651242)

Why wouldn't one trust someone else to run DNS? It's not like it's difficult to change if they start hijacking NXDOMAINs or censoring.
Besides, most of the censorship has been applied on the root servers themselves due to all the domain seizures by US authorities, so it's not like running your own caching server solves that.

Re:lol DNS blocking (2)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651470)

It's not like it's difficult to change if they start hijacking NXDOMAINs or censoring.

Would you know it if they did censor? Hell, if I got some random ad page when I type a url, I'd assume it was a typosquatter. What would a less techsavvy person do? Call the ISP? "Hey I can't get to example.com" "Your connection is fine, example.com must be down" "oh ok".

Re:lol DNS blocking (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652876)

But I'm not a less techsavvy person, so why are we talking about them?

Yes, if I got an ad page when I was expecting a real website, I'd google the name of the site - to check their cache/screenshot - and probably dig the domain using my secondary DNS.

But I don't remember the last time I got an ad page I wasn't expecting.

Re:lol DNS blocking (2)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651574)

Why wouldn't one trust someone else to run DNS?

Because ISPs have a history of not respecting RFCs? For example a lot of large ISPs used to (and may still do) ignore the TTL data for a zone and just use a TTL of 3 days.

It's not like it's difficult to change

But why wait to change? I have shown that ISPs don't run proper DNS servers, and you stated that it is easy to change, so what are you waiting for?

Re:lol DNS blocking (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652858)

You haven't shown anything. You claim that some do. That's fine, except mine doesn't*. So again, why should I change?

* I have a couple of my own domains, one of them which has a very low TTL since it's running on a dynamic IP. My ISP updates as soon as it's expected.

Re:lol DNS blocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37653026)

It is funny. As much as the government cracks down on crime it seems to me to generally be completely ineffective. It doesn't matter what you look at either. Look at piracy, look at speeding, look at anything at all. The government may have had an impacted in reducing smoking slightly by outlawing it in many public places. Even that though I'd question. Have we not been on a slow decline for ages? Is it really each step by anti-smoking groups which led us to this point and government action? Have all the little things (no advertising, warnings, and other things) really had an impact? Or are people just more aware today and it is socially acceptable to quit? Did we ever need these laws? What impact have they really had? Piracy is not seen as wrong.... and we continue to see answers to crack downs on it.

If you want to see my point check out the following site. It beats Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime by a long shot. It probably helps that it isn't dependent on Microsoft though....
http://www.quicksilverscreen.im

Re:lol DNS blocking (1)

staalmannen (1705340) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652218)

Indeed... I am currently living in Belgium and did not know that there was an ISP DNS block to the pirate bay (I just checked again and it worked)... coincidentally I am using the google DNS:es. It seems like a rather toothless way of blocking access to a specific site.

Re:lol DNS blocking (1)

ggeens (53767) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652672)

Indeed... I am currently living in Belgium and did not know that there was an ISP DNS block to the pirate bay (I just checked again and it worked)... coincidentally I am using the google DNS:es. It seems like a rather toothless way of blocking access to a specific site.

Also from Belgium, using the regular ISP DNS.

No problem accessing thepiratebay.com. www.thepiratebay.com forwards to depiraatbaai.be, which points to the same site.

An old classic (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651144)

The people making the rules don't understand how to make them effective

Classic problem (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651158)

One could make the case that judges don't generally understand technology, and it would be a valid one. Yet I think this points to a deeper and much older issue.

It's the difference between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". Obviously the intent was to make the Pirate Bay Web site unreachable. Obviously such an oversight was unintended. Yet the ISPs receive very specific instructions and are only looking after their own financial interests by following them to the letter.

You see the same thing everywhere in the USA, particularly with anything regarding the First and Fourth Amendments. To make up an example, when the pre-Industrial Founders talked about "papers and effects" should that mean "computers and cell phones"? Obviously. Who seriously thinks it wouldn't? They didn't want the government to screw around with private individuals without an evidence-backed good reason and due process. The intent is not difficult to discern. The Founders' notions about the proper role of government are not unknown. Free speech zones, you say? Does anyone really think the likes of Jefferson and Madison wanted the government to easily brush aside those who would speak against it? Why was this ever even a controversy?

The Constitution and most other basic laws are not so difficult to understand. The only reason one needs to be a "scholar" is to find clever ways to play word games so you can twist it around and do what was never intended. It's the same deal with this ruling. The intention is pretty damned clear (too bad one cannot say that about most tax codes). The effect is very much the opposite.

The US is becoming a nation of damned Pharisees. The entire system is run by lawyers whose interests include making law as incomprehensible and inaccessible to the average person as possible. That's how they make themselves indisposable and advance their diabolical profession. I think most nations have gone down this road. I don't live in Belgium but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they were also this way. So we can laugh at this judge who probably looks pretty stupid right now, making rules for what he so clearly does not understand, but the deeper problems it brings up are neither easy to solve nor limited to Belgium.

Re:Classic problem (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651240)

Relying on the spirit of the law is great when the ones interpreting the "spirit" interpret is correctly and don't abuse the system. Unfortunately, there's that whole human thing that gets in the way...

Re:Classic problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651518)

And that's the problem with interpreting spirit. Many times, it's not so clear cut and open to many interpretations. Like analyzing a book, there can be many possible interpretations when it involves words. Who is to say, which one is *completely* correct as these laws are created by often by a separate groups of people often with their own interpretations that went in when created and approving that very law.

If we allow such loose interpretations of laws, that also opens it up for abuse as well as justice. The reason why laws are so specific is to avoid such uncertainties when interpreting laws as much as possible to provide a fair and certain baseline at which to judge the accused. Unfortunately, you can only have it one way, complete trust in judges with loose laws (extremely open to abuse) or specific laws that don't cover all basis (extremely complex).

Re:Classic problem (2, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651918)

No, there's not. There is no "interpretation" of the constitution. Despite what many would lead you to believe, it's a very literal document and our government is in violation of every single amendment in it. Most teenagers could read it and tell you very directly what's meant and all agree.

But then we get into the realm of "Those guys wrote that thing a long long time ago, they didn't foresee all the stuff we've got to deal with now. They were dumb... old fashion. They didn't know about machine guns! Computers! Satellites!" No... they didn't know about that stuff, but they were not dumb, or old fashion. They were some of the most progressive people of their time. They fostered the most important revolution in human history and then overthrew the most powerful empire on earth with nothing more than farmers.

The best example is the right to bare arms... it's not the right to bare hunting rifles. The reason that amendment is there is so the citizens of the united states could violently overthrow the federal government should they feel the need. The armies of the federal government were never meant to be armed in such a way they could defeat the citizenry. The amendment is there to prevent a military coup.

Another example is the 1st amendment. Which is routinely trampled on for something as simple as "you're blocking traffic"

It's easy, it's only made complicated by those that wish to read something into the document that simply is not there.

Re:Classic problem (1)

superdave80 (1226592) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651964)

Which is routinely trampled on for something as simple as "you're blocking traffic"

I agree with your post, except for this statement. How is blocking traffic considered 'speech'? Why would I need to block traffic as part of exercising my right to free speech?

Re:Classic problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37652018)

There is no "interpretation" of the constitution.

There are plenty of interpretations of the constitution. Some of them "wrong" and some of them "right." But who has the power to interpret it? The potentially (and likely) corrupt government. I think It'd be even worse if these people were allowed to play guessing games to try to guess the "spirit" of the constitution. That's just too much. I'd rather have it be read as a literal document, as you said.

Re:Classic problem (3, Insightful)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652184)

No, there's not. There is no "interpretation" of the constitution.

Of course there is. One person reads it, and understands it to mean one thing. Another person reads it, and understands it to mean something different and incompatible with the first person's understanding. Clearly one of them is wrong. No matter how direct and literal you strive to be in writing a document, there are always going to be corner cases where the intent is not obvious nor universally seen as one and only one way.

Re:Classic problem (1)

niteshifter (1252200) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652258)

Which is routinely trampled on for something as simple as "you're blocking traffic"

Simple? No it isn't. The first amendment does not supersede:
A single parents need (and right) to get home to the kid(s) before the sitter leaves / day care closes, or to the school / hospital if the child takes sick, etc.
The right not to die in an ambulance after the stroke, coronary, aneurysm, whatever because it's snarled in traffic.

There's two to get ya started on thinking on what could possibly go wrong with intentionally blocking traffic.

Re:Classic problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37652668)

It doesn't? So because it might cause others some inconvenience, the first amendment should simply be discarded? We'll have to disagree there (even if, in the worst case, someone could die).

Re:Classic problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37652306)

To go even more OT:

They fostered the most important revolution in human history and then overthrew the most powerful empire on earth with nothing more than farmers.

You forgot the aid of only three of the biggest empires of the time: the French, Spanish and the Dutch.

Re:Classic problem (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652534)

And the home-field advantage - the british were half a world away, their supply lines stretched to breaking.

Remember who they were fighting. The British empire. Lots of people talk about taking over the world, but we got 25% of the way there. The largest empire ever seen by geographic area, and second largest by population. We came, we saw, we slaughtered and oppressed and we RULED. You think we were some pushover, to be defeated by a bunch of farmers? No, they had help. A lot of help.

Re:Classic problem (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652436)

No, there's not. There is no "interpretation" of the constitution.

"The way I read it is the only way of reading it"

Most teenagers could read it and tell you very directly what's meant and all agree.

Try it. When the results are anything but, I'm sure you'll argue they've all been poisoned by whatever.

The best example is the right to bare arms... it's not the right to bare hunting rifles.

Bear. The world is bear. And in 1939 the Supreme Court said:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Then in 2010 they said:

(f) None of the Courtâ(TM)s precedents forecloses the Courtâ(TM)s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47â"54.

A sawed-off shotgun would be an excellent weapon for close self-defense, but it's not protected by the second amendment because it's not usable in a militia? They can pretend not to have changed their minds, but I would clearly say the Supreme Court of 1939 and the Supreme Court of 2010 had two vastly different interpretations of the second amendment. And if the supreme justices that are experts on constitutional law have had different interpretations, you can bet a bunch of teenagers will.

Re:Classic problem (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652556)

On the other hand, weapons now are not the same as weapons then. We've got weapons capable of blowing up a sizeable city now. You can get full-auto drum-fed shotguns light enough to duel wield (And yes, fpsrussia has done it). If the second amendment grants the right to own a pistol, what about a shutgun? Combat shotgun? Land mines? Loaded bomber plane? Heavy artillary? Missiles? How about a few nuclear weapons? Somewhere, a line has to be drawn between 'right to bear arms' and 'Right not to be killed by some crazy person having a very bad day and going postal with his grenade launcher.'

Re:Classic problem (3, Interesting)

Leebert (1694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37653118)

If the second amendment grants the right to own a pistol, what about a shutgun? Combat shotgun? Land mines? Loaded bomber plane? Heavy artillary? Missiles? How about a few nuclear weapons?

I personally believe that the 2nd amendment *does* allow me to have nuclear weapons. I also believe that to be insane. However, the answer to that insanity is not to ignore the law, but to modify the amendment to reflect present-day reality.

Re:Classic problem (1)

Leebert (1694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37653098)

our government is in violation of every single amendment in it.

Come on now, there's no need for such an overstatement. I, for one, have not been demanded to quarter soldiers in my home.

Re:Classic problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37653174)

So, hang on a minute here: according to you, the 2nd Amendment should give me the right to own a nuclear warhead, and the 1st Amendment should give me the right to stand with it in the middle of Times Square threatening to detonate it?

Thank God Slashdotters are never going to be on SCOTUS.

Re:Classic problem (1)

s-whs (959229) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651270)

The US is becoming a nation of damned Pharisees. The entire system is run by lawyers whose interests include making law as incomprehensible and inaccessible to the average person as possible. That's how they make themselves indisposable and advance their diabolical profession. I think most nations have gone down this road. I don't live in Belgium but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they were also this way. So we can laugh at this judge who probably looks pretty stupid right now, making rules for what he so clearly does not understand, but the deeper problems it brings up are neither easy to solve nor limited to Belgium.

I sort of agree, but sometimes it is fun to find workarounds in for example rules that unnecessarily restrict people in what they can do. I've done things like that with the StVZO bicyle lighting rules (from Germany) on my website, because the rules as they are, are very strict and limit getting more power out of the dynamo, but the intent of the law was different: In particular to ensure interoperability of components and make sure oncoming traffic does not get blinded by light above the horizon. So, taking the spirit of the law I wanted to circumvent the letter of the law, and I give some examples on how to do it. This is the exact opposite of this situation. So I would argue that sometimes there are cases where it's useful (Note that it could take many many years before there is a sane rule change which would allow what I proposed in bicycle headlamps)

Now I come the spirit of the law: If the judge wants to block access to the piratebay, why doesn't he in his ruling say: "Providers should where technically possible not allow access to 'The pirate bay', this includes no access to the domains www.thepiratebay.org etc.". In that case it would be much clearer in giving examples, and taking the spirit of the law into it. Going around that would definitely show a breaking of the law (spirit and letter) or rather a ruling on the law, by a provider.

Re:Classic problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651768)

Now I come the spirit of the law: If the judge wants to block access to the piratebay, why doesn't he in his ruling say: "Providers should where technically possible not allow access to 'The pirate bay', this includes no access to the domains www.thepiratebay.org etc.". In that case it would be much clearer in giving examples, and taking the spirit of the law into it. Going around that would definitely show a breaking of the law (spirit and letter) or rather a ruling on the law, by a provider.

Please allow me to follow you instruction to the letter and possibly the spirit as far as I can tell from your example: The pirate bay [google.com]

Do you see the problem with trying to write too generic laws that are open to interpretation?

Re:Classic problem (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651384)

You see the same thing everywhere in the USA, particularly with anything regarding the First and Fourth Amendments. To make up an example, when the pre-Industrial Founders talked about "papers and effects" should that mean "computers and cell phones"? Obviously. Who seriously thinks it wouldn't? They didn't want the government to screw around with private individuals without an evidence-backed good reason and due process.

That's an interesting choice of an example, since "effects" includes computers and cell phones -- the letter and spirit agree entirely here, and both are violated with abandon (against ordinary subjects) by the uniformed thuggery, secure in the knowledge that the robed aristocracy will rule in their favor 4 times of 5.

It's not an issue of "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law", it's an issue of "the law" vs "law enforcement".

Re:Classic problem (2)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651390)

A) A court decision does not equate to a law in any Civil law countries, which Belgium is.
B) Rarely does a judge in a Civil legal system interpret the spirit of the law(unless that is explicitly stated in the law). Interpreting the laws' is prerogative of constitutional/supreme courts.

The American obsession with people that died almost 2 centuries ago, that lived in a totally different world and had a different world view, is rather disturbing...

Re:Classic problem (3, Informative)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651566)

Thanks, I was going to point this out too. Belgium uses civil law [wikipedia.org] which is very different from the English common law [wikipedia.org] that Americans have copied. What a Belgian judge decides cannot be meaningfully interpreted as a precedent in American terms.

Re:Classic problem restated (3, Informative)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651396)

I might disagree.

In the US we're getting so many blatant Constitution-demolishing new politics/cases that they're not even trying to follow the law anymore. Yet the 1960's age of Civil Disobedience is/almost over.

So the only form of protest left is to use the Letter/Spirit of the law. Because the Spirit of the law is "Let's let a measly 10-Billion Industry completely dominate all of world politics!" So when the smart users find a loophole, it's the only way they can't be slammed with the Terrorist label.

Re:Classic problem (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651464)

If a court order tell your to do X then you do X. You don't do X in spirit, you do to the letter what they said. Well assuming you are contesting the order in some way anyway.

In this case you block the names they said to block. Blocking more just opens you up to being sued by the name holder.

The court can update the order/make another one, if they didn't actually mean what they said.

Re:Classic problem (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651526)

The repeated violations of the Constitution go well beyond violating it's spirit, they include making up a fictional spirit based on a despot's wet dream and violating the letter of it as well.

The Cellphone rulings are a great example. Your cellphone is one of your effects, so the letter of the Constitution as well as the spirit insist that a warrant is necessary to search it. There are no exceptions.

Re:Classic problem (3, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651804)

could make the case that judges don't generally understand technology, and it would be a valid one

On the other hand this could be the equivalent of a $1 fine because the law says the Judge has to impose some sort of penalty. Somebody of the course of this trial has to have told the Judge that DNS is analogous to the name and number in a phone book but the number is the important thing and can have several names pointed at it. Judges are rarely stupid especially in places where they have to earn the post through merit instead of election - they mostly get portrayed as stupid by those that have a vested interest in reducing the power of Judges (eg. politicians).

Re:Classic problem (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651810)

So when YouTube receives a takedown request obviously the intent is to block that content from being on YouTube. Therefore it should be YouTube's responsibility to act in the spirit of that ruling and find and block any and all variations of it. If they don't, the copyright holder should be able to sue them for not following the spirit of the order. Do you see how easily I took something reasonable and turned it into something completely unreasonable? That is what starts happening when you mess with things like that. What if the ISP screws up and blocks some other domain which they thought pointed to TPB but actually didn't? Not only can they be prosecuted for taking down too little, but also too much. That is why they should follow the order to the letter and let any errors be the fault of the court.

Re:Classic problem (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652334)

I'm originally from France, not Belgium, so I can't say anything about Belgium for sure.

But from a French standpoint, I think that the US legal system is all about the "letter of the law", not the "spirit of the law".

And if a French judge told me to block www.piratebay.com, www.piratebay.net, and www.piratebay.org, assuming I was an ISP in France of course, I would never even dream of playing word games with the judge. In France, that kind of "letter of the law" defense would only enrage such a judge and get me severely punished as a result. Like I said, the legal mindset in France is very different from the legal mindset in the US, and I wouldn't be surprised if Belgium wasn't more like France than it is like the US.

Re:Classic problem (1)

findoutmoretoday (1475299) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652394)

<quote>So we can laugh at this judge who probably looks pretty stupid right now, making rules for what he so clearly does not understand, but the deeper problems it brings up are neither easy to solve nor limited to Belgium.</quote>

Or most probably it is a clever judge:  You want us to stop piratebay.  We should, but how on earth are we going to do that? ..... Those URL's, are you sure?  OK granted,  next case.

Its not negligence to omit www (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651176)

Why make people type 4 extra keystrokes (most annoying on a portable device) to visit your site if the only thing on port 80 of that domain is a Webserver ?
Makes sense to do away with the subdomain prefix, nobody respects the traditional ftp. irc. www. anymore (bar the real OGs) sad but you can thank mobile devices/twittergen and crappy HID where inputting anything is a pain in the ass.
just CNAME the www subdomain to the main A record and url rewrite to get your visitors in the habit of losing the www

~s

Re:Its not negligence to omit www (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651430)

You misunderstand. What's "negligent" is the fact that www.thepiratebay.org serves up a blank page, rather than a redirect or a copy of the content.

Alternative domain for Belgians (4, Informative)

hydrofix (1253498) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651206)

The Pirate Bay has also already registered a domain specifically for those in Belgium, to work around the censorship order. http://depiraatbaai.be/ [depiraatbaai.be] (Flemish Dutch for "The Pirate Bay")

This is not listed in the domains the court ordered to be blocked. TorrentFreak has the full story [torrentfreak.com].

Re:Alternative domain for Belgians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37652064)

Are they discriminating against French-speaking Belgians?

Re:Alternative domain for Belgians (2)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652168)

depiraatbaai? What kind of spelling is that. Stupid Flanders.

Re:Alternative domain for Belgians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37652352)

depiraatbaai? What kind of spelling is that. Stupid Flanders.

That's what happens when you feed things through Google Translate.

Re:Alternative domain for Belgians (1)

unkiereamus (1061340) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652622)

Sadly, I spent my last mod point on a +funny much less worthy than this a couple days ago.

Re:Alternative domain for Belgians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37652680)

depiraatbaai? What kind of spelling is that. Stupid Flanders.

It is bad language, even in Flemish Dutch. It should be "depiratenbaai".

Re:Alternative domain for Belgians (1)

sg_oneill (159032) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652300)

corsairbaiebaie.be would be available too for the french speaking belgians too.

Re:Alternative domain for Belgians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37652666)

The Flemish court ruling does not apply to any ISP in the French part of Belgium, since they could not read it. (I'm not making this up!)

Re:Alternative domain for Belgians (2)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652440)

I can confirm this. I am in Belgium and am directed to http://depiraatbaai.be./ [depiraatbaai.be.] So just a bit of patience for the DNS servers to be updated and all will be well.

All this has encouraged me to start using my own DNS. I know I could use Google, but why give them even more information then they already get.

Alternate domain names... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651218)

How about registering some alternate domains such as "yohoho.org" or "mehearties.org" or even "arrr.com".

Just sayin'

Re:Alternate domain names... (2)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651602)

How about registering some alternate domains such as "yohoho.org" or "mehearties.org" or even "arrr.com".

YOHOHO.ORG is taken, but MEHEARTIES.ORG is available.

ARRR.COM? ... taken - for sale
ARRRR.COM ... taken - has a pirates page [arrrr.com]
ARRRRR.COM ... taken - redirects back to your own IP
ARRRRRR.COM ... taken - see the Avast! TalkLikeAPirate keyboard accessory [arrrrrr.com]
ARRRRRRR.COM ... taken - Industry42
ARRRRRRRR.COM ... taken
ARRRRRRRRR.COM ... taken - some wordpress blog started in august
ARRRRRRRRRR.COM ... free!

FUKKINARRRR.COM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651760)

bt

What real good is blocking DNS's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651282)

I understand, the vast majority of the "users" out there probably have no clue what DNS even really is, but honestly - 30 seconds and a host file entry and I wouldn't need it to get to their site. And, ok, they may get other legal hassles and have to move, and I'll have to find their new IP at some point, but still... its asinine to think blocking DNS alone is going to stop someone who really wants to get there.

Re:What real good is blocking DNS's? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651364)

But it serves 2 purposes - it placates those who wanted the judge to do something, and it's both simple to implement and simple to get around - so it's a win-win. The judge gets this case off his docket, the entity bringing the suit can say "we won", etc.

Re:What real good is blocking DNS's? (1)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651568)

But it serves 2 purposes - it placates those who wanted the judge to do something, and it's both simple to implement and simple to get around - so it's a win-win. The judge gets this case off his docket, the entity bringing the suit can say "we won", etc.

They deserved something other than humiliation? (Winning a case based on laws you bought doesn't count as not-humiliating...)

Re:What real good is blocking DNS's? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651802)

Anyone using TPB should be able to figure out how to get around the block, or know someone who can show them how, so it's really a non-issue.

Three cheers for thepiratebay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651346)

Gotta love those guys. Thumbing their nose at all of the morons of the world, while giving so many what they want... Wish I could do more than just buy their stuff to support them.

Pointless (1)

Alunral (2477578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651350)

I find that kind of funny that it was so specific as to overlook something so blatantly obvious. It just shows that these judges, and the ISPs for that matter, don't know what they are doing at all. For now, that means TPB is still around, and this court order hasn't done a single thing. What's more, people will just keep finding a way around these orders.

Re:Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651564)

Or that the judge know exactly what it means, not like the ruling but had to rule based on existing laws.

194.71.107.15 is the new black (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651474)

Damn. I have to type four numbers now instead of a domain name to get to my torrents. Will this persecution never end?

Re:194.71.107.15 is the new black (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651620)

Hmmm ... When I try 194.71.107.15, I get a blank page, but depiraatbaai.be works just fine, and even gets me The Pirate Bay's main page in English. DNS here tells me that 194.71.107.15 is the IP address of depiraatbaai.be, so you'd think they'd work the same. Both of these were pasted directly into a browser's address widget, so it's not a problem with HTTP_REFERER or something like that. Anyone know what's going on here? Has some other court (or an ISP's management ;-) decided to look at the HTTP header and block GET commands that don't include a FQDN? That seems far to sophisticated for any court (or ISP management ;-).

Re:194.71.107.15 is the new black (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651654)

Named based virtual hosting like almost every other web site in existance.

Re:194.71.107.15 is the new black (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651824)

Well, yeah, but in that case, the OP couldn't have used it, and would have no basis for the complaint:

Damn. I have to type four numbers now instead of a domain name to get to my torrents.

I mean, it's common for /. denizens to not bother reading TFA. But this person seems to be posting a complaint about needing to do something that wouldn't even work. Would a /. reader be dumb enough to complain about something without trying it to see if it's even feasible?

;-)

Re:194.71.107.15 is the new black (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651668)

I think it's far more likely that the server is set up for name based virtual hosting (regardless of whether they are actually using it or not) and is set up to serve a blank page for unknown names.

Re:194.71.107.15 is the new black (1)

bs0d3 (2439278) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652060)

the thing with using an ip instead of a url is that many servers host more than one website at the same ip.

Re:194.71.107.15 is the new black (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37652138)

Just make each web server listen on a different port if you need to share the IP address.

Re:194.71.107.15 is the new black (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37653112)

How are you going to tell (possibly dumb) people what port to use?

It's much easier to use named based virtual hosting than to tell people they have to use http://194.71.107.15:81/ [194.71.107.15] or even http://www.thepiratebay.org:81/ [thepiratebay.org]. The DNS only tell you which IP-address to connect to, not which port.

www prefix no longer works in US either (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651476)

At least with verizon fios in the US http://www.thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org] no longer works for me, but http://thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org] works fine. I wonder if that has something to do with this issue.

I did an nslookup of thepiratebay.org and got 194.71.107.15 which doesn't work in my browser. I just get a blank page. I can't ping or traceroute to thepiratebay.org either. Could this have something to do with DDOS countermeasures?

Re:www prefix no longer works in US either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651498)

Both work just fine on my FiOS.

Re:www prefix no longer works in US either (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651624)

The ip also returns a blanck page to me. They are probably relying too much on name virtualhosts.

Re:www prefix no longer works in US either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651660)

On Comcast with the same experience.

Re:www prefix no longer works in US either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651746)

It works for me (eMobile 4G internet), but the WWW redirects to the naked domain.

Re:www prefix no longer works in US either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651814)

Why the hell are you using the DNS server provided by your ISP? This is a perfect example of why NOT to.

Arf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37652204)

Um, that is the correct IP address for both www.thepiratebay.org and thepiratebay.org. At least it is according to his ISP, my ISP, my own DNS, Google's DNS, and a handful of others I tried. The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with DNS and everything to do with how TBP has configured their server to respond to requests to www.

Boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651696)

Another Slashdot article about stealing shit.

Re:Boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37653158)

Yeah! How dare the ISP steal the hostname www.thepiratebay.org and send false NXDOMAIN responses, when www.thepiratebay.org clearly is the property of thepiratebay.org? How rude!

Use the numbers? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651726)

Presumably the IP addresses would work as well, and failing that, use a different DNS provider or a local hosts file. Seems like a bit of a waste of time for the Belgian courts.

Great, get yourself a contempt of court citation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651772)

What, do you think Judges need to put up with Bullshit excuses like that? The judge will just say you're quite obviously trying to skirt my order, and you think I'll not punish you, and then the judge slams you down for your openly contemptuous attitude.

And this whole discussion is going to be a prime example if somebody wants to hold a hearing on it.

Not that I expect the Belgian ISP to be that dumb, their lawyers will tell them exactly what they'll be in for if they dick around with the courts that badly.

Why? Because judges aren't literal genies or magic fairies.

Meanwhile, OpenNIC. (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652282)

If an ISP blocks a domain rather than an IP address, that's like the delisting a number from the phone book*, and about as anachronistic. But sshhh... don't tell the courts!

(*Historical note: In the twentieth century, phone books were paper-based directories reprinted annually by telephone companies, listing names, addresses and telephone numbers.)

Re:Meanwhile, OpenNIC. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652310)

If an ISP blocks a domain rather than an IP address, that's like the delisting a number from the phone book*, and about as anachronistic. But sshhh... don't tell the courts!

(*Historical note: In the twentieth century, phone books were paper-based directories reprinted annually by telephone companies, listing names, addresses and telephone numbers.)

Historical note? I got my latest phone book this year.

Won't last long... (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652716)

the judges will certainly correct the problem by asking to remove "194.71.107.15" in the DNS, and then we're screwed.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...