Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 31st Jul 2009 15:46 UTC
Legal Yesterday, the Dutch online community was surprised by a verdict from a judge who declared that The Pirate Bay had to make itself unavailable in The Netherlands. This verdict was cast in a case the Dutch RIAA/MPAA-like organisation BREIN had started against The Pirate Bay. With it being a widely known and established fact that downloading copyrighted content off the internet - even if the upload was illegal - is not illegal in The Netherlands, where does this verdict come from? Is it truly a win for the entertainment industry, and a loss for Dutch consumers? Not really - the situation is much, much simpler than that.
Thread beginning with comment 376377
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Kokopelli
by Kokopelli on Fri 31st Jul 2009 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kokopelli"
Member since:

So the fact the they went through Swedish authorities, the Swedish baliff, as well as a known good email address was not important? The fact that when the official channels were tried and failed that Twitter and facebook were used as well is the critical piece of information? The fact that the registered mail was signed for is not pertinent? And the fact that the link sent in the summons was visited by an address that resolves to a pirate bay owned address is not important either? If you are going to report report the whole story, not just the parts you want.

I am simply asking that you report all of the facts rather than cherry picking the ones you like. I would expect that from torrentfreak but not osnews.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Kokopelli
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 31st Jul 2009 17:39 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kokopelli"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

Again, you fail to read properly. I did not say the other attempts were not important. I just said that I listed the most important ones. That's what a summary does: listing the most important parts of a story.

If you had basic comprehension skills, then you'd know that "the most important ones" does *not* mean the others are not important.

Edited 2009-07-31 17:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[6]: Comment by Kokopelli
by Kokopelli on Fri 31st Jul 2009 17:45 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kokopelli"
Kokopelli Member since:

So let's debate this. Twitter and Facebook are more important than the fact that the plaintiff first went through the proper authorities and sent an email to a known good address? The fact that the mail was registered is also not important? My reading comprehension is fine.

EDIT: A story that relies on a real news item for backing can summarize. When you write a stand alone piece you should try and include pertinent information. What you chose to list and what you chose to omit in this case is negligent. I have no love for *IAA or their European equivalents but report the facts.

Edited 2009-07-31 17:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0