Dutch efforts to decapitate Pirate Bay could end up before ECJ

Re: Easy Peasy...

Honesly I'd quite like a ruling on this, as it gets pretty murky when you start dealing with things at the remove TPB technically is. If I tell someone about a local guy who sells bootleg DVDs, am I committing a crime by doing so because I'm telling them how to commit a crime? Does it only become a crime to tell them if that person then goes on and buys the DVD, or if I accept money for providing the information?

Re: Easy Peasy...

The law should protect the innocent from the copyright cops. Website operators and services who do not intend to infringe should not be liable for massive damages when they do.

The law should have been clear from the start but it wasn't. Today the Courts look at intent and the technical hair-splitting defence doesn't work any more. "Was the Pirate Bay was part of an unlicensed supply chain? Was it a big part?"

Obvious answer to both is yes, so case closed.

Re: Easy Peasy...

Nice sentiments, but us dutchies don't work that way. The Terror Card doesn't fly over here, there's no such thing as "aiding and abetting" in our laws, and stichting BREIN has about the same status as an ambulance chaser or patent troll at best.

The way things stand now over here is that while it is technically illegal to dowload "pirated" copyrighted content, the whole mess is officially considered Unenforcable. This means that unless you're actively distributing for profit, the authorities won't bother, at all. (If you do want to try and turn a profit on someone others' wares you have another problem.. we're a country based on Trade.. that's sacrosanct.. We have a different set of laws for that one, where the "with intent to profit" is the working ingredient.. )

When it comes to the Pirate Bay, who are only just "pointing the way to ...", there is nothing in Dutch law that forbids them to do that. On the contrary, making a profit of Knowing Where To Get Stuff is a time-honoured Dutch form of enterprise and as such protected in Dutch law and custom. Criminalising the Pirate Bay on that would have severe repercussions for several trade and service sectors here, so that's a political no-no.

Even worse, what BREIN wants amounts to censorship. This is an extremely sensitive subject in this country, given that our whole existence and success is based on the fact that we have none. You will have people up in arms if you even try, as it's felt to be on par with ( or even worse than) capital punishment, and cases where it's applied are rare.

On its own, our government can issue a law that would indeed make things like the Pirate Bay illegal, and even block it. Technically speaking. The original injunction has already cost some parties seats in parliament as they failed to address the censorship issue immedeately, or even defended the injunction. It's actually only fuelled the anti-Brussels sentiments over here.

BREIN is tickling the bear while pulling the tigers' tail here, and our Advocaat-Generaal knows this. The checking-back-with-the EU-court is simply a delaying tactic to avoid middens hitting windmills. Which will happen eventually, since BREIN is like a rabid terrier. It won't quit until it's taken down the back and shot.

The equivalent

of the man down the pub telling you which stall down the market sells bootleg movies.

Re: Interesting Whichever Way the Verdict Goes

Ah, but you've missed that YouTube is a big American company and therefore immune to all laws.

Re: Devils Advocate...

Afraid you'll never get anywhere with this. British and American security services already have their own internal list to obtain these services.

This all comes under aiding and abetting. However, it's much harder than people think to even define this in the digital world.

The above would be a fairly simple and obvious case if that's all the website did. However, make the website somewhere where people can advertise 'services', which might include legal as well as illegal and the situation becomes somewhat more difficult. You might get a name for being a good place to go for these sorts of things, but it's no longer ALL you do, so quite easy to get around the law.

If the above weren't true, Google would be in severe trouble. After all, they index and advertise (through search) all manner of illegal activities, including the above, drugs, copyright infringement etc.etc. They are also just as aware that its going on. So, what's the difference. Why should a service advertising portal (even if its known for this sort of thing) be shutdown or prosecuted, but Google not? They're both fully aware that their services are being used for illegal acts.

Re: Devils Advocate...

Isn't that what the Mechanical Turk was for?

Re: Trademark Infringement

Wasn't there a limit though so that the content went public domain and the original promisers would be able to use the content in their lifetime? Without that, would they still have promised?

Re: THE PIRATE BAY I LIKE SEX

@Trigonoceps occipitalis

Indeed so. As I said in an earlier post, politicians and business people need to sit down, think about it and come up with a sensible answer that actually acknowledges the reality of enforcement. They also need to consider all the crimes carried out by those complaining (e.g. Sony) and prosecute them and stop the cartels, profiteering, anti-competitive and sharp practice carried out by these companies. Then, maybe people would feel a bit better towards them, would pay a reasonable amount for the goods and be able to have reasonable enjoyment of them.

All these companies want to have their cake and eat it and have the money to effectively (in some cases literally) buy politicians.

Re: Stuck Watching Trailers, Eat My Shorts

forcing you to watch up to a half dozen slag trailers

My mate put in a DVD for his kid a while back. One of the first things on it was an unkippable ad for Coco Pops.

I was horrified.

Vic.

Re: Stuck Watching Trailers, Eat My Shorts

"You can't bypass them, you can only fast forward them"

A lot of the Disney ones won't even let you do that.

"We all know the stories of the reason copy write came to pass"

Your story is amusing but incorrect.

Copyright (and patents) in modern context exist to allow authors and inventors to make enough from their ideas to keep on doing it.

It's arguable that 20 year copyrights were too short, but it's also absolutely clear that death+50/80/100years is having a widely chilling effect.