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 376383
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by Kokopelli
by Kokopelli on Fri 31st Jul 2009 17:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kokopelli"
Kokopelli
Member since:
2005-07-06

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

RE[7]: Comment by Kokopelli
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 31st Jul 2009 17:52 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Kokopelli"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Jesus Christ dude, lay it off already. Yes, your reading skills ARE indeed way off.

The Twitter and Facebook summons were what made the news BEFORE the trial started - as clearly indicated in my article. BEFORE the trial started, it was thought that these were the only methods with which BREIN tried to summon TPB (obviously because these were public).

Now that the verdict is here, we can read that this was in fact wrong - they were summoned via more official and acceptable means as well, and of those, I listed the two most important ones - the exact same two ones as listed by the Dutch law & copyright expert Arnoud Engelfriet in HIS summary of the verdict. Now, I'm sorry, but I trust him more than some random commenter one the web.

Please, you're making a fool out of yourself. I'm not the one for tinfoil hats, but your comments here are giving me the faint impression you might be liasioned to a RIAA/MPAA-like organisation.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Comment by Kokopelli
by testman on Sat 1st Aug 2009 04:56 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Kokopelli"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Arguing ad personam is very unprofessional Thom.

Please, you're making a fool out of yourself. I'm not the one for tinfoil hats, but your comments here are giving me the faint impression you might be liasioned to a RIAA/MPAA-like organisation.

With comments like that I don't think it is Kokopeilli that is looking like a fool.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Comment by Kokopelli
by sicofante on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 00:40 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Kokopelli"
sicofante Member since:
2009-07-08

Jesus Christ dude, lay it off already. Yes, your reading skills ARE indeed way off.

The Twitter and Facebook summons were what made the news BEFORE the trial started - as clearly indicated in my article. BEFORE the trial started, it was thought that these were the only methods with which BREIN tried to summon TPB (obviously because these were public).

Now that the verdict is here, we can read that this was in fact wrong - they were summoned via more official and acceptable means as well, and of those, I listed the two most important ones - the exact same two ones as listed by the Dutch law & copyright expert Arnoud Engelfriet in HIS summary of the verdict. Now, I'm sorry, but I trust him more than some random commenter one the web.

Please, you're making a fool out of yourself. I'm not the one for tinfoil hats, but your comments here are giving me the faint impression you might be liasioned to a RIAA/MPAA-like organisation.



Kokopelli is right. You made it sound like Facebook and Twitter were the main channels chosen by the lawyers to notify TPB, when indeed they were just a last resource after trying everything else.

The article is biased in other ways too as others have pointed (regarding what's the most hated organisation in The Netherlands or how you suggest simplistically that TBP is good and BREIN is bad).

You have not only made these mistakes but you've been stubborn enough not to admit them and have even insulted readers like Kokopelli, who has worded his comments much more respectfully than you.

I visit this site almost daily and I used to respect your information and manners. I certainly expect you to apologise for this late behaviour.

Edited 2009-08-02 00:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2