Swedish Court Get The Pirate Bay Taken Down
from the sunk? dept
When the original ruling came out against The Pirate Bay's founders, one odd part was that there was no injunction forcing the site to stop doing anything. The entertainment industry quickly filed for one -- which seemed a bit odd, considering that the case was under appeal. The latest, however, is that a judge has ordered one of the main ISPs servicing The Pirate Bay to stop, making the site largely inaccessible. In the meantime, the gov't agency that was responsible for getting the founders to pay up has basically found that they can't find any money to collect, which aligns with what the four guys have been saying all along (that they don't own the site and don't make money from it).Either way, congrats to the entertainment industry for temporarily wac(k)ing another mole. Considering the whole mess with GGF, it seems like most of The Pirate Bay's users are already migrating elsewhere, and a few people are setting up clone sites. Again, this certainly isn't condoning their behavior, but at what point does the industry realize that it's not helping matters. It's just further distributing the problem, making it that much more difficult to do anything legitimate. Update: And, of course, it only took a few hours until the site was back online. Keep on mole hunting, Hollywood.
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: sweden, take down
Companies: the pirate bay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Three hours later
http://twitter.com/brokep/status/3514859878
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three hours later
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three hours later
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Three hours later
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Three hours later
=)
All computers I own or can convince the owners end up with OpenDNS as the DNS servers of choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazing, isn't it?
Oh yeah Mike, it isn't whacking another Mole. It takes another country off the "safe to run file sharing" list. It's getting to be a very, very small list now (russia and china, maybe iran)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Oh yeah Mike, it isn't whacking another Mole. It takes another country off the "safe to run file sharing" list. It's getting to be a very, very small list now (russia and china, maybe iran)"
....er? Safe to "run file sharing"? What is wrong with file sharing? I think you probably meant to say infringing or illegl filesharng, but I also think you've revealed your true preference that ALL file-sharing go away. Probably a large percentage of what's on the internet as well, no?
Hey, fascist, that's called a Freudian slip. And the pain you keep feeling in your ass as a result of your inability to make money off of the internet? That's called the technology boomstick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
File sharing by it's very nature is almost entirely infringing / illegal material. Very, very few end users have the true permission to share a file, very little of what was on TPB was legal to share, and so on. The few torrent trackers that went "all legit" pretty much went "all dark" a few months later and disappeared.
Do you think many end users would have their torrent programs running 24 hours a day if all they could share were downloads of unix and updates for warcrack? Come on.
"And the pain you keep feeling in your ass as a result of your inability to make money off of the internet? That's called the technology boomstick."
Haha... if only you knew. Now hush child, your ignorance is showing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hello Coward!
If you insist upon shilling; would you at least get a name? Attempt to acknowledge that you are, in fact, a person.
Also, can you cite any information to back up your assumptions? For example, name 3 clone sites of TPB and what countries they are being hosted.
Ready, go!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Too sexy for my shirt
So sexy it hurts!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyway
Anyone want to figure out a way to end the IP WARS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think that depends very much on whether you count the number of files or the download traffic. I don't find it unlikely at all that the majority of files on TPB link to noninfringing material, but that at the same time the majority of the bittorrent traffic generated is related to infringing material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are very few actual legal / non-infringing users of torrent transfers, certainly nowhere near enough to justify all those end users keeping their torrent programs up and running. Remove the infringing content, and torrent transfers would be about as popular as using Archie would be these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm too sexy for your party!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Fred - Getting Nowhere
"You see the trouble with Fred is he's too hasty
Now you never get nowhere if you're too hasty."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Eh, I'm okay with mine.
"File sharing by it's very nature is almost entirely infringing / illegal material."
That might be....yup, that's the stupidist thing I've heard so far in 2009. File sharing by it's very nature is simply the multi-user distribution of electronic media. It can be infringing or not, illegal or not, but by it's nature it isn't either.
"Very, very few end users have the true permission to share a file"
Depends entirely on what they're sharing. I'm nearly 100% against infringing downloading, yet I fileshare a lot.
"very little of what was on TPB was legal to share"
That's not what you were talking about, you were talking about file sharing as a whole. TPB was a group that flaunted their distaste for the entertainment industry, and they almost certainly were dismantled or are in the process of being dismantled because of it. I'm actually quite indifferent about their demise because I kind of think they were assholes about what they were doing. None of that has any bearing on the intrinsic use and value of file sharing.
"Do you think many end users would have their torrent programs running 24 hours a day if all they could share were downloads of unix and updates for warcrack? Come on."
...and user-created games, non-label music releases, Open Office and open-source software, PDF compilation libraries of music/books/movies/etc. in the public domain, etc. etc. etc.
The point is it doesn't really matter what the percentages are. Illegal downloading/sharing is illegal, and if the owners want it stopped, it should be stopped in a reasonable manner (this means suing the correct people, not imposing fines of a ridiculous level, etc.), but taking away LEGAL filesharing because of some kind need to overkill a problem is probably also illegal, and if not it is certainly WRONG.
So stop it. That's a bad shill. BAD! Sit...no, don't beg, I'm not your RIAA handler. AND STOP PEEING ON THE RUG!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But not completely eg
BBC iplayer uses a filesharing mechanism for downloads
Fact is it has substantial legal uses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No it's not. File sharing by it's vary nature is legal. Why do you think it was invented? Do you truly believe that someone invented file sharing exclusively for illegal reasons? No, it was invented for colleges to transfer data back and forth.
"very little of what was on TPB was legal to share"
Now we are being more specific. If I'm looking for a legal torrent, I usually start at TPB because more people will see it and more people are sharing it initially. I'll leave the rest to Dark Helmet's response.
"Do you think many end users would have their torrent programs running 24 hours a day if all they could share were downloads of unix and updates for warcrack?"
Oh, oh, I do. I do it not only to help get the data out, I do it to piss of the RIAA and shills like you, Fred. Plus I share quite a few indie and public domain movies and music because I believe that more people need to see those. I also share a shit ton of open source games and programs because, like the others, more people need to know about them.
"Haha... if only you knew."
Dude, you said that in absolutely the wrong way. Especially when Dark Helmet was talking about pains in the ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Freudian slip numero dos!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, if you and your 10% of "legal" torrent traffic go it alone, there likely won't be the critical mass to make things move. In the end, there isn't enough legal "file sharing" to make there system go.
Now, one other thing: I am not a shill, stick that idea up your ass. I'm just a guy who isn't stupid enough to get conned into breaking the law to "make a statement", especially when most of the people here wouldn't know the statement from a hole in their ass.
Sort of like trying to have a debate with a 6 year old child. You can never win, because the kids don't care about logic.
Keep going children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do know how P2P works, don't you? You only need a few people sharing one file. You don't need a bunch of files for it to be p2p. You may have lost me, but there doesn't need to be a critical mass to make file sharing work. Hell, there only needs to be 2. And when 300 people downloaded "reefer madness" from me, I think we have those 2 people.
"I'm just a guy who isn't stupid enough to get conned into breaking the law to 'make a statement'"
And the second I get arrested for sharing Linux and NIN songs, you'll know when to leave the planet.
"Sort of like trying to have a debate with a 6 year old child. You can never win, because the kids don't care about logic."
I'm going to throw that right back at you since you don't seem to be listening to what we're saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Illogical. By definition, 10% currently legal traffic means I'm not alone. That's illogical inflamatory language.
"...there likely won't be the critical mass to make things move."
Well, now that's an interesting point. At what point is the critical mass achieved? I don't know the answer to that...do you? Are there any studies that have been done (preferably at least a couple to get a few opinions)? And if the answer isn't known, then how can you claim it as an argument?
"I am not a shill"
Well, you certainly sound like one. Based on word-choice and writing style I'm relatively certain I can pick your comments out of a lineup most if not nearly all of the time, and you're on the attack ALL THE TIME. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that you disagree with EVERY single thing Mike says. Do you have a logical explanation for such illogical actions that will make it make sense for me?
And also, when you say you're not a shill, what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that you're not paid to say things on this or other sites? Are you saying the more important claim that you are free and clear from any/all RIAA associations? Label associations? Music/entertainment industry associations? Are you claiming that any reasonable person who examined what you do for a living, who you associate with professionally, etc. would conclude that you have no conflict of interest regarding what is discussed on this site?
"I'm just a guy who isn't stupid enough to get conned into breaking the law to "make a statement""
That particular statement has absolutely nothing to do with me. Kind of illogical there.
"Sort of like trying to have a debate with a 6 year old child. You can never win, because the kids don't care about logic."
[Forehead slap]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal?
Can usually find em on all of the big torrent sites.
Thanks for playing though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, no, no, it's the Internet that's the problem. We need to get rid of the Internet! Things were just fine before the Internet came along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have you heard of Spain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PB Torrents
then you can run the tracker your self.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PB Torrents
eh, I already switched to mininova (TPB's sister site) when the buyout was still a possibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright proponents argunents are self-contradictory
So filesharing programs don't exist
or the have no value (so it's pointless to complain about them)
or the first premise - which underpins copyright - is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright proponents argunents are self-contradictory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
War on Sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: War on Sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fred loves RIAA cock
there. Enjoy."
Yeah - Freddy Fudgepacker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lolwut
Right, so all those game patches that I burn for friends that don't have high speed connections is illegal. All those images that were taken with personal cameras and shared with friend, yup thats illegal too. Well, according to you it is.
You want to stop file sharing? Get off the computer, who knows... maybe someone will follow you :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wondering
Has anyone done any research showing a relation between songs being freely available online and concert ticket sales? My first thought was to look at NIN, but honestly I didn't care for any of his recent work so it didn't inspire me to hear it live. Maybe some indie bands with increased fan base?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wondering
I'll do you one better.
Baen Free Library
Eric claims that a lot of people buy the products AFTER DOWNLOADING THEM legally and for free. Not just other books by the same author, but the same books they've already downloaded. Others buy the books instead of the online versions even when the latter are given away. And some authors have claimed increased interest in their backlist. Including books with other publishers.
THE INTERNET DEBACLE - AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW
The online versions are professionally prepared, available in several common formats, and totally DRM- and encryption-free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So how is TPB's impending shut down a victory?
Do they think that every who uses TPB will just STOP their activities when TPB goes under?
Is that seriously what they think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So how is TPB's impending shut down a victory?
Wash, rinse, repeat. Turning the tide on the masses who think that everything should be free (and then bitch that their favorite shows aren't on TV anymore, that their favorite band hasn't put out a record in years, and that concert tickets cost $300 to sit in the nose bleed seats)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So how is TPB's impending shut down a victory?
Ooh, ooh, a math-based argument! Let's assume there are currently 1 MILLION filesharers... yeah, low, but follow along. 5% of them stop sharing. We are now at 950,000 filesharers. Alright, pretty decent, 50,000 people now still aren't buying music... And are pissed off. After taking, what, a year+ ? Well, it's still getting better right?? Then let's do it again!!
They shut down mininova (say), and another 5% stops sharing. We're at 902,500 sharers now. But that's still alot! (of pissed off no-longer-consumers) AGAIN! 857,375 sharers! We're getting there!! Surely it's getting better...! AGAIN!! 814,506 (and one quarter person. I guess a baby started filesharing?) sharers left! Wait what? We're not even down 200,000 filesharers yet? But, but... That was 4+ years of effort!! :'(
Mathematically you need to kill Fourteen torrent sites like TPB just to kill 50% of filesharers. And that's even assuming 5% stop! I consider that a high estimate, because none of them were subjected to personal risk. And in the meantime, they're giving GREAT publicity to the fact that you CAN use filesharing like that. (Even better, it takes 70 years to get 50% off if it kills only 1% each time.)
This is why we call it Whac-a-Mole. It will never stop, at least not in the foreseeable future, because you are right in one thing; It's only a small percentage of people who will stop using TPB-ish sites for that purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So how is TPB's impending shut down a victory?
First off, and this is important: The hardcore file sharers for the most part weren't going to be paying consumers anyway. They aren't the issue. So take, I dunno, 40% of your number as "can't be fixed / always will be an asshole" and start there.
Now, the first time one goes, you lose 5%. But as more and more of them get taken down, the effects not only of the takedowns but the legal implications start to pile up. So numbers of users are lost faster and faster. WHen torrents lose critical mass, suddenly there isn't enough peers to make file sharing of the long tail items very useful, so it becomes a much more short term market place, where a file that is a couple of weeks old might not have enough peers to make it accessible.
Basically, the legal actions tend to move the those people who aren't "committed to the cause" away from the product very quickly.
So you don't have to whack very many moles before you start changing the public's perception. The Joel and Jammie shows have gone a long way in the US to giving the public a taste of what is "illegal" in this process.
The other thing too is that TPB also provided a signficant number of trackers and hosting for other trackers, as well as an API that easily allowed other sites to search them. With the loss of TPB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So how is TPB's impending shut down a victory?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So how is TPB's impending shut down a victory?
Clearly, you don't understand how all this works. There's no such thing as "losing critical mass" with torrents. When you want to file-share, say, "Steal This Film 2", only ONE torrent is needed for it- just one.
So if a film studio can produce 28 films in 10 years, all that's needed for making all those films available via download is 28 torrent files.
The only figures worth considering in this are (1) the number of sharers per file and (2) the available bandwidth on each user. But even these are only relevant when you're determining the amount of time it takes for you to complete your download.
6,342,235 peers, 46 peers, 1,532 peers. It doesn't make a difference. There is no "critical mass" here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how is TPB's impending shut down a victory?
Critical mass is important. If you only have one peer, limited to say,I dunno, 40k... how long is it going to take you to get "Steal this film 2"? Weeks?
Sorry, critical mass is incredibly important for a "distributed file sharing network".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how is TPB's impending shut down a victory?
You have demonstrated your complete lack of understand of torrents so many times it is not even funny.
Please go learn about torrents before you act like you know what you are talking about. You are only making yourself look like a fool. Really, it makes you near impossible to take seriously.
All of that critical mass you claim is required. You know where that came from? One person.
Your argument is weak and your mother smells of elderberries. Now if you do not leave I shall have to taunt you a second time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how is TPB's impending shut down a victory?
Go look at the torrent protocol - without many seeders and peers, it is very difficult (almost impossible) to get most files. it doesn't matter if you have a tracker that says the file exists, if nobody is offering it (or the only one offering it is a very slow connection) it could take you weeks to get an entire download.
For fun, go try to download a movie file that has only 1 seeder and
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how is TPB's impending shut down a victory?
Go ahead and answer that, I'm waiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how is TPB's impending shut down a victory?
Oh wow. Let me get this straight. After about a dozen or so posts of you telling us how illegal it is to share any file, you encourage everyone to go download a movie? Please. Get real. I mean, at least tell us to download Linux or something useful like Open Office. But wait, that would defeat your purpose, wouldn't it? Wow.
I do have a question for you though. You say that all P2P should be illegal and should not be allowed. What do you propose to do about the game companies that push updates to their clients, people that pay for a game and a service (WoW, EQ2, Steam/Valve games etc.) by using P2P software? Do you have a better idea about how they should do this? Should they go back to the old days of having their servers crash when they patch games or when a new game is released? Please help me understand this a bit better. Since you are such a great and awesome god of understanding how P2P works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how is TPB's impending shut down a victory?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in my case comcast drops traffic in the bay area and thats as far as it gets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now you're infringing, "Fred"...
And you've completed misappropriated the content of the song: "now Fred's riding Fred, Fred's riding Fred's riding Fred"
"haha, if you only knew"...telling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not know about the rest of you but TBP is still down where I sit. My TPB account is filled with legal files the sharing of which violates no ones copyright. Now, because of ignorant (and greedy) dinosaurs, no one can access MY FILES which I OWN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You might want to operate your "legal" stuff with other legal people, rather than hanging around thieves and "infringers". The only greedy people that put your files offline are the Arrogant Basterds that ran TPB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dude, suggestion for you: Go climb a tree. If people want share their files using bit torrent, then they should be free to do so. Of course, you entertainment industry tools don't much like the competition, do you? Furthermore, if people really want to avoid thieves and other bad characters, I suggest they avoid the likes of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Screw off. I am not in the music or movie business. Get bent.
If you want to share files on torrents, don't do it on illegal torrent sites. It's a pretty simple concept. The reality is there is almost no such thing, so you can set up your "virtual" hot dog stand in the middle of a crack house. Don't be shocked when some people think you are either selling crack or doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey, how can you tell if an industry tool is lying? Look to see if his lips are moving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Searching for lawsuits against legal filesharers using illegal torrent sites...
Searching...
Searching...
No results were found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's about bitching when you can't get to your "legally" shared files because someone turned off the "illegal" torrent site.
Sort of like complaining that someone knocked the crack house down, so you can run your hot dog stand anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why are you hanging around here with us then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10315958-93.html?tag=mncol;txt
"Media companies will struggle to grab any money owed by The Pirate Bay, as Sweden's official debt collector found that three of the four founders have "no attachable assets" in that country."
Basically, the money is offshore somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless you've got some evidence to prove that, I'm calling you a lying industry shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
guess what happened???
same effect for TPB...as soon as TPB was shut down big media started mentioning bittorrent and p2p, bringing it to the attention of the masses...and more people decide to "find out what this p2p things about".....way to shoot yourselves in the foot...examine anywhere in techdirt and look for the Streisand Effect......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analysis of the court decision
On page 10 it says that when Sweden implemented the EU directive 2001/29/EG ("infosoc directive") it was found that Swedish law corresponded to the demands of the directive regarding injunctions targeted at third-parties. The government also wrote that for assistance of a crime (whether intentional or not) just providing internet access is not enough to make an injunction possible. Providing server space and knowing that is used for infringing content is mentioned as an example of when an injunction is possible. These examples cannot be found in the actual law text, but in Sweden, unlike some other countries, the courts are obliged to take these texts created during the preparation of the law into consideration as well in order to interpret the intent of the legislator.
Two pages later the court finds no reason to dispute the information given by the ISP according to which they don't provide any server space in this case. Then there is a paragraph explaining that it's likely that the ISP is aware of both the Pirate Bay verdict and the fact that rights holders earlier this year thought that the ISP assisted the infringement.
Then the court writes: "These circumstances taken together are such that Black Internet, through it's providing of internet access to the file sharing service The Pirate Bay objectively speaking [whether intentional or not] can be found assisting the copyright infringements that users of the site and possibly others commit." Then it goes on to say that an injunction is then possible.
It's very hard to understand how they reached this conclusion. Maybe the court meant to imply that the ISP had intent and failed to notice the law preparation text where it clearly says that this shouldn't matter in the case where just internet access is provided (as opposed to server space). Otherwise it seems downright contradictory.
Furthermore, the injunction is not target at the Pirate Bay site as a whole but just the copyrighted works explicitly listed by the movie and record companies. So the ISP is not ordered to cut-off access completely, but just block certain works. Now this is of course not possible so they have to turn off all access. It could be due to the fact that the ISP didn't bother to explain this fact (which is of course readily apparent to any person with minimal technical knowledge) properly that the court didn't take this into consideration when balancing the different interests against each other. On the whole, this ISP hasn't seem very interested in fighting this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My IQ dropped 20 points just reading this....
It isn't. Do you play World of Warcraft? Left4Dead? Fat Princess? Hell, even Puzzle Bobble with another player?
That uses filesharing and datasharing. What you have just said would make all these illegal. That's idiotic.
Filesharing has it's uses; fro example, I uploaded a file onto my MS Live Workspace, and downloaded it from another computer. Under what you are stating, that's illegal.
If I'm using filesharing to get a copy of a misplaced product which I already have a licence for, and simply need to reinstall, that's illegal in your eyes, when it is clear that you can backup this information legally in most countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]