Danish Court Tells ISP To Block PirateBay
from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed... dept
Back in 2006, a Danish court demanded that ISP Tele2 start blocking access to the AllofMp3.com website. It seemed like a bizarre request, focused on just one ISP. While the ISP complied, apparently the block was quite easy to get around and the overall impact of the ban was minimal. However, that didn't stop the IFPI from talking up what an important move it was. Along those lines, the IFPI has now convinced a Danish judge to also tell Tele2 that it needs to block the Pirate Bay as well. Are they going to demand that Tele2 also blocks Google and Usenet? It's difficult to see the rationale behind this -- and even more difficult to understand why they think that this time such a block will actually be effective. Yet, of course, the IFPI will talk about what a significant move this is in their ongoing fight against
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blocking, danish court, denmark, pirate bay
Companies: pirate bay, tele2
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
this = fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go ahead Denmark
Real mature!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nonsence
the only way that idea would work is if all did so and then maybe several ways round it.Change ISP or Sue for censorship. ie stopping me from searching the web for legitamate uses after all if they ban one then how many more that the public dont know about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's terrible
The problem is that the other ISP's tend to follow (don't ask me why) like they did with allofmp3.com and mp3sparks.com.
You can say what you want about allofmp3, TPB and how useless a DNS block is, but it's a very slippery slope. This is pretty much as pure censorship as it gets (which is forbidden in the danish "Grundloven" just like in the US Constitution), and if it's allowed to continue there is no telling where it will end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looking at the upside this at least gives the appearance of doing something which will give the RIAA and their ilk less ammunition in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People have shared music and files for years. Sure, the RIAA jumped in and sued a few people, and what happened? People still share music, file sharing has probably increased 3x fold.
Good luck in their pointless quest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re Danish Court Tells ISP To Block PirateBay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re Danish Court Tells ISP To Block PirateBay
The most effective way to stop this Copyright bull shit... Haveing manufactures stop makeing use pay so god damn much money for something... Get the economy back up and drop inflation... Make the US dollar worth more then the Euro...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danish Court Tells ISP To Block PirateBay
And wtf does that have to do with the Euro? You still only pay $3 for a gallon of milk moron... Germans pay like 5 - 6EU for a facking Liter!!! So go suck a pipe bomb and get a GED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re Danish Court Tells ISP To Block PirateB
We do have copyright for a reason. There are people who making their living off of intellectual property. This won't stop all piracy, nothing will, but the goal is to cut piracy back. A site where anyone can download anything will affect sales much more then a person copying a friends CD.
And to those who say Pirate Bay doesn't host anything, that's not the point. Their purpose for being is to give people access to copyrighted works. Its like the Grokster case, sure you can use it for legitimate means, but even Grokster promoted one aspect of their service - downloading copyrighted works for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That will fix these issues with the RIAA and MPAA - if you get something on Torrent, they'll just charge your account. You won't be able to sneeze without the government knowing about it. So yes, once the government has enough control of US, then stopping piracy will be easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Corey
People do need to make a living, and people should have some means of being compensated for their work, but we need a system that will encourage the production of content -- and one that won't punish fresh creators or legitimate customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Corey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Corey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @Corey
Back to Corey: what other industries does this apply to? I get paid to complete a contract, and when that's done I don't get paid unless I have another contract. Do you not think I have expenses? Construction companies work the same way; they don't get paid repeatedly for the same building, they don't get a cut of resale or rent income. Food service makes money on a meal, and then has to produce other meals to make money.
Even aside from that, the point is not that you currently have to make money on past works to get by at all, but whether some other model would allow you to get by without relying on income from things you did five, ten, and twenty years ago. I submit such a model exists; you disagree. As near as I can tell, through several threads on this blog, the only basis for your disagreement is that's not how your current business works, so a future business can't work like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @Corey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Corey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corey strikes back....pitifully.
That's true, but copyright was never meant to last 75 years plus.
"There are people who making their living off of intellectual property."
That is also true, but copyrighted works should go into the public domain after a period of time, not go to support the orginal artists' children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren.
My biggest question, why isn't there an industry-sanctioned site called 'The Movie Bay?' This would be the place where everybody could download works, and the 'industry' would get paid. And, if you seed a movie, the 'industry' gives you money back for helping them distribute the movie.
Make 'The Movie Bay' $15 a month, and of course NO DRM. Maybe add 'The TV Bay' and 'The Music Bay' as well.
How about it, Corey? Why doesn't the industry do this? They could make millions (billions) off of the consumer in this way, but they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apology for the Strawman, Corey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apology for the Strawman, Corey.
I've used the publishing industry as an example because I am an author, but I did work in the movie industry (low level) for a number of years and my wife still does. The people at the studios research every possible way to make more money to death. If they are this resistant to something, maybe they know something that we don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, I really meant to apologize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, I really meant to apologize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, I really meant to apologize.
Strictly speaking, I think everyone is in the business to make money, but I think that's the wrong way to look at things, not the least of reasons being that it alienates you from what you're doing and who you're doing it for. I don't think of myself as being in the business to make money so much as I feel I'm in the business to make computer systems better, more secure, more reliable. Money comes into play more as a bartering mechanism, since most tech companies can't give me steaks and scotch. Likewise, the entertainment industry should be in the business to entertain, or to educate, or whatever; they should be compensated, yes, but they shouldn't let the bottom line be the driving force of their business.
Sorry about the mini-rant there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corey strikes back....pitifully.
And AC is right, how many 70 year old works have you downloaded? That being said I do know an author who is in his seventies and published his first book 50 years ago. Its long out of print, but is a fine book and if it does go in print again, then people are still enjoying his product and he should be paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Corey strikes back....
I don't think it's right to say that just because people are still enjoying his past work that he should necessarily still be compensated for it. As I noted above, a Builder gets paid once for his work. I don't think it's unfair to be paid only once for work you do only once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Isn't that an argument *against* copyright? After all, if there's no demand for anything 70 years old, why keep it locked up? Why not offer it into the public domain where something useful might be done with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bah
There is no other business model. It's not like music where you can use the songs to promote concerts.
With software, that's all there is. There's nothing else or nothing more to come.
Programmers have to be paid somehow.
If I'm Adobe and I give away a copy of photoshop, what do I do for money? How do i pay the developers?
Please Mike, tell me how I can pay developers while giving away their software for free, and I will definitely start doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bah
Really? There are tons of examples.
There is no other business model. It's not like music where you can use the songs to promote concerts.
Really? Let's see. Mozilla gives away Firefox for free and makes a ton of money by selling a search box slot to Google. Microsoft gives away IE and makes tons of money in the online ad business. IBM invests a ton in Linux and gives it away, selling its professional services offerings to help companies build up IT on Linux. Red Hat gives away Linux and makes tons of money selling services.
You really think that there are no other business models?
With software, that's all there is. There's nothing else or nothing more to come.
See above.
Programmers have to be paid somehow.
All of those companies pay software developers quite well.
If I'm Adobe and I give away a copy of photoshop, what do I do for money? How do i pay the developers?
See the above models for some ideas, but there are plenty more -- especially with software like Photoshop.
Please Mike, tell me how I can pay developers while giving away their software for free, and I will definitely start doing that.
Again, look at the examples above, for just a few quick examples. There are lots more where that came from. I just grabbed a few obvious ones off the top of my head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bah
The XP/Vista DRM and activation crap is just a bad decision and my signify the fall of a giant (at least with Windows).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Various replies:
The majority of people, like myself, will pay. I told you in a previous blog post, if the 'industry' comes out with a pay service without DRM, my visa card would probably melt. Since the 'industry' is so good at promoting things, they could 'educate' consumers as to which are the 'good ones' and which are the 'bad ones.'
"And AC is right, how many 70 year old works have you downloaded? That being said I do know an author who is in his seventies and published his first book 50 years ago. Its long out of print, but is a fine book and if it does go in print again, then people are still enjoying his product and he should be paid."
A>> My point about the 70+ years is looking forward, not backward.
A movie released today won't come into the public domain until the year 2083. (longer, if the corporations get their way.)
What will the world be like in 2083? I don't know. But until then, the 'industry' has a lock on it.
Let's take that a step back, shall we? There was a movie release in 1983 called 'Brainstorm.' Way ahead of it's time back then. A 26-year copyright on that movie would expire in 2009 (without the extension granted by the 1976 'revision' of the copyright act.)
That would give somebody the freedom to re-make that film, and start shooting it TODAY. But you can't unless you are willing to wade through the 'licensing' and everything else that comes along with a work still under copyright.
B>> Seriously, you think somebody should get paid for a work that they did 50 years ago?
I'm not trying to be callous, but 50 years?
Let's expand on that, shall we? I go to sell my 2006 Pontiac, and just when I am ready to sign the papers, a lawyer comes up and demands payment on behalf of the UAW workers that helped put it together.
"For what?" I ask.
"Because there was intellectual property involved in the creation of that vehicle. You don't think that the worker who made that vehicle deserves to feed his great-grandchildren?"
Granted, this is about a 'tangible' item. But what about Garth Brooks? (he was a person who wanted royalties from used CD's)
How long before the corporations start lobbying congress to give them royalties from every used dvd that sells on ebay?
Now to draw the line between the two.
Yes, an author should get paid for a work, including royalties for each work sold.
No, the term should not be 75 years (or life +95 years). If he hasn't created any new works since the publishing of that work, then he needs to get a job or starve.
That is one of the problems with today's society, we have too many people sitting on their asses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Various replies:
"For what?" I ask.
"Because there was intellectual property involved in the creation of that vehicle. You don't think that the worker who made that vehicle deserves to feed his great-grandchildren?"
The problem with your argument is this. The author is not getting money on royalties from books already in print - used books, like the used car example. I'm saying if they go back into print again, he should get paid. If you design a car body for Ford, and in 50 years they decided to go retro and reuse the body, and make a ton of money off of it - don't you deserve your cut?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Various replies:
I submit that you do not. You did your work, you were paid for it. MAYBE we could have something where you get compensated again if they re-use your idea within five years, but beyond that what's the point? What are you trying to encourage? What are you trying to protect? At best it will never be reprinted and your provision does nothing. At worst it will be very popular, the author will be very popular, but instead of producing more work he will collect off of past performance. Everyone is worse off in that case, except maybe the author who never has to work again. Especially if, as you seem to hold, the only reason to produce anything of value is to make money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Various replies:
Copyright is also important to protect the quality and integrity of your work. Here's an example. The widow of late filmmaker Ed Wood sold his final script, "I Woke Up Early The Day I Died." Because of Wood's popularity after the '95 Tim Burton film, she had multiple offers for the script - with one condition, they wanted to add dialog to the script (the entire concept was to do a film with incidental sounds, but without dialog). She turned them down and sold to a smaller producer because she wanted the film to be made "as Eddie had intended it." Now, without copyright protection, one of these larger companies would have been able to go ahead and make the movie anyway, and because the market will barely support one version of the movie, that would have ended Kathy Wood's plans to get Ed Wood's vision to the screen. Copyright protection let her get Ed's vision to the screen, but let his fans see what he had intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Various replies:
On that point we agree; it's how to define "fairly" that we seem to have differences on. Or, even aside from that, HOW you get compensated. I'm not even saying that Artists shouldn't get paid the huge amounts they get when they make it big, I'm just arguing that (1) current models are broken, and (2) copyright discourages innovation and production.
As to Mr. Wood's script, I think you're wrong. That is, you're right that copyright kept other studios from producing their derivative 9if you'll allow me the term) works, but it WASN'T required for the Widow Wood to have the TRUE film produced. Truth in advertising, if nothing else, would require studios that altered the script to say that it was "based on" the last script by Mr. Wood, where as the actual, official, and one true film would be able to say it really was his, it really was what he intended.
Now, I dispute your claim that the market "will barely support one version," but even if that were true, which do you think would come out on top, the true film or the one that could only claim to be "based on" a script by Mr. Wood?
(This, of course, all assumes that Mr. Wood's script couldn't be improved by adding dialog; for respect to the late author I won't press that possibility.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bays and books
I am interested in some content that old. First example off the top of my head, we are nearing the 70th anniversary of The Wizard of Oz. But 70 is a lot more than the original 17.
I would love this "Movie Bay" idea, if the prices were good. I'd even buy The Wizard of Oz! Most media I acquire now comes used from eBay. $18 is just too much for a CD. What do the copyright protectors say to this? Is it wrong because they are not getting a cut? Is it OK because the person I'm buying it from no longer has it?
No DRM on this Movie Bay, either--If I buy a DVD, I can take it to my friend's house, I may want to do that with a file I buy, too. I would also like to play the content in the software of my choice, rather than installing some proprietary piece of junk that calls home, dirties up my computer, and so forth. I like to have only one media player for everything.
I would absolutely use iTunes at $10 an album if it met these requirements. I think $8 for a new movie is a decent price, and $5 for older titles. I'd like to purchase these things through my web browser, and do what I want with them. Is this so unreasonable?
I currently get most of my books from eBay, as well. I grew up in a library, by the way (gasp! People reading for free!) so I have great respect and love for books. I'm interested in an e-reader such as the Kindle, but the content I want (mostly older books, and quite a few that are rather obscure) has to be available in the service, so I'd like to not have to depend on one service. And again, I really don't want to install very specific software for something that can easily be done without it, or use a proprietary format. So, as with music and movies, if I may visit a website, log in, select what I want and enter my credit card info for a decent amount, I would be extremely happy to pay for electronic books. That right price, Corey, is also key. I don't know what your research expenses are, but I'm sure some money was also spent on printing and binding a nice hardcover, dust jacket, transporting crates of books--expenses which do not exist with PDFs. True, there is a server to maintain, but this is less cost ($8/year for domain name, $100/month for hosting--very little for a large book publisher) than all that is associated with physical books. The margin for ebooks is much higher, which is good for you and your publisher, and if this is recognized and I can pay less than the price of a paperback, I'd buy a hell of a lot more books. You could also cut out the middleman and sell your books on your own website (remember, you by yourself with your ten books would use far less bandwidth than B&N or Random House, so your cost is more like $10, or $7/month--sell one book and you're breaking even! Research costs, again, are unknown to me, but it's simple math...or perhaps your publisher could sell the hard copy and you could sell the electronic copy (do you currently get $10 per book sold?) so that all of your readers can get the book in the format most convenient to them.
Make your books convenient to buy and use, and people will buy them. Who'da thunkit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bays and books
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bays and books
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bays and books
Lack of copyright protection ¬ people not getting paid! The sooner you understand this, the better.
DRM and lawsuits against PirateBay = "copyright protection." Without such protections (restrictions), people are more willing to pay for the content, even if it is available for free elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: bays and books
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: bays and books
However, while I agree that some people will always take the free product over the one with monetary cost, I think you're wrong to assert that more accessibility necessarily means more "pirates." There have been plenty of people, myself included, who have said that they'd happily pay for an official product of known quality over a free, unknown product.
Some people will always want free, and you'll never get them to pay; so you don't lose any money off of them. Some people will want free to test the quality of the product. "In Rainbows" showed that some of them will then also pay for it. Odds are the ones who don't pay are either in the first group (so they wouldn't pay anyways) or in a new group who simply didn't like the product. They would have been angry with spending money on a product they don't want, so if you've lost anything it's probably mostly negative PR. And some people don't trust free, going with the old adage "you get what you pay for."
The problem, the forces which Mike has pointed out and which I believe are going to come into play, is that there will be people who choose to give their product, their music or their book, away for free. They will have developed a business model to make money in some other way, likely by harnessing the fans and market expose they will draw. If you fight a model that freely exposes itself like that by using a model that's intent on tight control over distribution (and thus denies itself similar exposure), you will lose. Not because people are copying your book or music, but because you will remain unknown as the others grow in popularity. It's not that people will think your product isn't worth paying for, but they won't know that it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bays and books
I repeat a question I asked earlier: Why is everything so black and white with you?
They will have developed a business model to make money in some other way, likely by harnessing the fans and market expose they will draw. If you fight a model that freely exposes itself like that by using a model that's intent on tight control over distribution (and thus denies itself similar exposure), you will lose.I can tell you right now what Corey's answer to this is: "The market is finite! It is impossible to get any more readers! People not paying can only take away profits!" Hm, I guess I answered my own question. My advice to Corey is to shut down libraries and eBay, then run away from the big bad world like a scared rabbit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bays and books
There's a number of industries spending a whole lot of money to fight piracy. Maybe, 4-80-sicks, instead of thinking that you're smarter then everybody else, you should ask yourself why are they spending this money, fighting this fight. Maybe, they know something you don't. And maybe, just maybe, some people have lost sales because of piracy.
And I never said everything is black and white - I admitted Mike's business model can work in some cases, just not all. It is you who sees no grey area. If someone tries to explain to you why there might be no benefit (and maybe even a loss) if some products were given away for free, you don't want to hear it. If you can't admit that there are some people in the world who would buy a product if it became hard enough for them to get it for free, then I can't help you. Logic is obviously not your friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bays and books
You're absolutely right. There isn't just black and white in this argument. Yes, most people look at the extreme ends of the spectrum. on one side are the people who would never pay no matter what, on the other are the people who will go way out of their way to stay within the law. Those two sides don't actually matter in this argument it's only the spaces in between that matter.
Most people are in the gray area. They want to do the proper thing and will pay for it. If someone makes that proper thing to difficult to do then they will work around it. The trick is to make it easier to get the legal goods than the illegal ones. Make a movie download site that you can get good quality movies fast without DRM and charge $15 a month for it. I would pay (I'd actually pay more but we don't want to push it). It would be a hell of a lot easier than searching threw the crap on pirate bay (not saying PB is crap just a lot of the torrents are.)
Books are harder but I bet there is a way. I'll tell you right now I will not read a book on my computer. Makes my head hurt. (probably a good reason why the E-Books never got off the ground) I also like owning a physical copy of the books I'm reading. I bet I'm not alone in this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bays and books
Perhaps it is not understood that I am not against copyright, only:
1. the draconian infinite extension of it which prevents creators today from, for example, using a piece of Steamboat Willie to create an interesting, modern work of art.
2. "protections" that try (and fail) to prevent "piracy" at the expense of my enjoyment of what I paid for, as outlined previously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hooray!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hahahahahahaa! Yes, I admit, I was trolling there, of course.
there are some people in the world who would buy a product if it became hard enough for them to get it for free
I think this number is very small. Sure I may be wrong. But that's what I think. You think what you think. Since I've started talking to you Corey, I have made concessions here and there, but you refuse to do so.
I never said everything is black and white
No, of course you didn't. But you imply it, by assuming that if an opportunity is there for piracy, it WILL happen and the publisher WILL lose money and you HAVE extended the market as far as it can possibly be extended. I'm sure there are ways to do this that neither of us has thought of.
I don't think I'm smarter than everybody. I do think that companies aren't always acting wisely, this is proven by the complete lack of effectiveness in fighting piracy. Why are they fighting? Because they are narrowminded and don't see any other thing they can do. Music sales are very high right now, and are higher in the past ten years than ever before. This despite the fact that music is the most pirated content. I don't know anything about sales in the book industry (yes, I do indeed admit it and will shout it from the rooftops) but I can tell you that I personally will not by an electronic book if it is protected by DRM and would rather have the unencumbered pirated version, but will likely end up not reading the thing at all. Is that what you would prefer?
I don't know why you're talking about articles about books again, that's left over from our previous discussion, but my response is that that is but a small piece of the puzzle.
I agree with Chrono, I'd rather have the real book, but with that new display technology in the Kindle, ebooks are starting to look better. Be ready for ebooks to become more popular, Corey. How much of your compensation do you want to go towards fighting that never-ending fight you put your heart behind?
I am a book-lover and I don't download content without paying for it. I've mentioned this before, but I want to be sure you know it. I'm on your side as an author. I just happen to also be pragmatic, even if I jab you in the ribs about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you, as someone involved with the publishing industry, tell me the secrets of the universe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
english
[ link to this | view in chronology ]