Print 98 comment(s) - last by IvanAndreevich.. on Jul 7 at 6:10 PM

How are you gentlemen!! All your free speech are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction... You have no chance to survive make your time.
Guilty verdict furthers copyright protection organizations dreams of banning free speech

The IFPI, RIAA, MPAA, and their international allies have led a crusade against copyright infringement over the last decade, which has seen record million dollar verdicts handed down against citizens for essentially petty theft.  Now, even as they continue their lawsuits, they eagerly await gaining new sets of legislated tools thanks to the lobbyist money they've been pouring into governments worldwide.  

We previously detailed how the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, set to be debated by the U.S. Congress later this year, currently contains a new crime called "imminent infringement", which is essentially copyright thoughtcrime.

Now courts in the Netherlands have added speechcrime to that list, essentially ruling that is illegal to even talk or write about piracy.  The case began last year when Dutch movie studio Eyeworks sued a Usenet community FTD for "making public" their film 
Komt een vrouw bij de dokter (A Woman At The Doctor).

Typically "making public" means you uploaded a file and shared it.  In some cases, the definition has been extended to posting links to infringed material.  However, in this case FTD's users neither posted copyrighted material nor links to it, they merely would "spot" locations of various films on Usenet and post them to the group (sans-links).

In May, in Dutch Federal court in the Hague FTD was handed a defeat.  The court issued an "ex parte injunction" banning the site's users from "spotting" under threat of punishment.

The FTD's lawyer Arnoud Engelfriet filed an objection (appeal) to the court order.  That objection was heard last week and FTD lost yet again when Dutch court essentially ruled a second time that free speech did not cover talking about or writing about piracy.

Speaking with 
TorrentFreak Engelfriet voiced his frustration, stating, "I am flabbergasted by the court’s reasoning.  It is established case law that publishing hyperlinks or torrents (Mininova, Pirate Bay) is *not* the same as a publication. FTD does less than what Mininova or Pirate Bay does, but according to the court we are more liable than they are?"

The Judge supported his decision citing a case in England involving a Usenet service called Newzbin.  Engelfriet describes, "They say that FTD is doing the same thing, and since the English courts held Newzbin liable for infringement, FTD must be liable too.  This completely ignores the technical differences between Newzbin and FTD. Newzbin is an NZB search engine through which you find codes to directly download from Usenet. FTD is a forum where people ’spot’ movies using messages in ordinary Dutch."

The FTD's unsuccessful defense was that it did not control the servers the material was hosted on and hand no control over potential downloaders and thus was not "making available".  The court said this was inconsequential and that guilt would be determined by establishing "whether the behavior of FTD allows users to download copyrighted files (in an easier manner) and thus makes such files available to the public."  And the court found they did.

Tim Kuik, director of Dutch copyright protection group BREIN cheered the decision, stating, "This is a collaboration between FTD and its users where they knowingly provide access to unauthorized files.  It’s clear that this is more than just talking about files like FTD wants people to believe."

Brein is suing the FTD in a second court case.  That case will go to court in October.  Kuik wants to see FTD shut down entirely and taken off the internet.

FTD may soon have a bit of vengeance, though.  Dutch elections are this week, and due to decisions like this one and the Sweden's multi-million dollar verdict against the owners of 
The Pirate Bay, the Pirate Party is picking up steam.  Writes a party spokesperson, "When reaching landmark decisions that overturn years of jurisprudence, neither the judge nor the issue is served when it turns out that the judge in question is in business with the copyright-lawyer from the party benefiting from this shocking verdict. The fact that this joint enterprise mainly offers courses on 'counter-piracy' at €900 per day, makes the situation appear even muddier still. If the Netherlands wants to avoid looking like a banana-republic where the law is for sale to the highest bidder, it is urgent that parliament takes control of the debate on copyright-reform, and brings it back into the public arena where this discussion belongs."

It has been established that the judge serving on 
The Pirate Bay case was a member of copyright organizations and may have financially benefited from the decision.  The Pirate Bay admins are currently appealing the case, hoping for a more unbiased day in court.  Despite the seemingly liberal nature of the Netherlands it has been leading the way in copyright enforcement, banningThe Pirate Bay and other sites entirely.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By The Raven on 6/9/2010 4:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think what Mr. B was drawing from this is that with both Socialism and Fascism the individual's freedom is decreased significantly or eliminated altogether. (If you don't believe me just ask one of the 400K people who starved to death in 1892 tzarist Russia, the 15 million victims of the Holocaust, or the millions who were executed in mid-20th century China.)

My point is that though he is factually wrong, his defense of freedom is spot on.

I believe the ONLY "freedom" you loose in a socialistical influenced market is the taxation... I have to pay taxes for the public services the government provides, private enterprise exists as a competition to the service provided by the government and my freedom as an individual is affected how?

There is no 'private enterprise' in socialism. It all belongs to everyone. So the freedom you lose is is the freedom of choice that you mention. Why don't people get this? Socialism might be a great idea if we all thought alike as it aims for peak efficiency. But freedom gives us more innovation which can also create efficiencies. I don't know if I said that right, but I think you can catch my drift.

RE: Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law...
By erple2 on 6/9/2010 8:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
There is no 'private enterprise' in socialism. It all belongs to everyone.

Wait a second. Are you confusing Socialism with Communism?

By kalak on 6/11/2010 8:54:31 AM , Rating: 2
Wait a second. Are you confusing Socialism with Communism?

Yes, He is.It's a common misunderstanding. From web:

Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. Socialism asserts that the distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals' production efforts, however, while communism asserts that that goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals' needs.

Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists assert that both capitalism and private ownership of the means of production must be done away with as soon as possible in order to make sure a classless society, the communist ideal, is formed. Socialists, however, see capitalism as a possible part of the ideal state and believe that socialism can exist in a capitalist society. In fact, one of the ideas of socialism is that everyone within the society will benefit from capitalism as much as possible as long as the capitalism is controlled somehow by a centralized planning system.

Another difference between socialism and communism is centered on who controls the structure of economy. Where socialism generally aims to have as many people as possible influence how the economy works, communism seeks to limit that number to a smaller group.

By ninus3d on 6/10/2010 7:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, WHAT? :P
I live in country currently governed by social democracy and in this country I created and ran 2 companies that together provided me with "daily bread" for together 6 years!

There is no 'private enterprise' in socialism.

It was a government office that aided me for free in all i needed to know and do (in terms of documentation, filing, requirement for certain types of company forms like AS or limited responsibility etc, legal rights and requirements etc) because I couldnt afford a bussiness lawyer, and I even got a government sponsorship once I had proven that I had a product and a consept that would turn a profit...

Do you see how bizarre your suggestion gets here?
I can at best accept that socialism as a generalisation for the tens of different ways to use it has SOME WAYS you can implement it that limites certain freedoms, for example you can make it illegal to have private enterprise competing against state in certain areas like healthcare or education because for example you say that healthcare should be equal for everyone.
But I do by no means accept the so typical american generalisation that socialism = communism, they are VASTLY different.
I am lucky to live in one of the worlds richest country, its a very socialistic country called Norway, and although HIGHLY socialistic (free education, free healthcare, equality as a core, EVERYONE working or not has the right to income defended by LAW, EVERYONE is guarantered a high quality of life again by LAW) and based on polls less than 4% of the population supports communism.

"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki