Anti-Piracy Group Says That Just Talking About File Sharing Should Be Illegal
from the hush-up-now dept
Earlier this year, we noted that the Dutch Usenet community FTD was suing BREIN, the local "anti-piracy" group, for suggesting that FTD was a criminal operation. As the case moves forward, FTD is pointing out that as a Usenet group, all that it enables is discussions and doesn't see how discussions -- even if about file sharing -- should be infringing themselves. In response, BREIN still insists that a Usenet provider can, in fact, be a criminal organization, and asked the court to fine FTD $70,000 per day if it doesn't get people to stop talking about file sharing. But, no, copyright doesn't conflict with free speech at all... right?![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: brein, copyright, ftd, netherlands, usenet
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: seriously?
Yes it's so hard that even trying is pointless - so short of outlawing all communication you can't do it. Try extending the concept of talking about filesharing - even directly telling people where stuff is directly available - into the offline world and you'll see how ridiculous it is. Remember - ordinary word of mouth can transmit a message to the whole world in six steps.
And no, you can't just take people's stuff that they are selling and post it for your friends to get for free. If you want to give away stuff, make your own stuff and give it away... my guess is after all your own personal hard work, you won't feel so comfortable when people are taking your stuff (unless you intended to give it away, which is your right alone as yes! the copyright holder).
Copyright holders need to realise that the game is up. Technology has made their "property" undefendable. It can only be used now as a promotional tool.
(btw this does not mean that I approve of infringement - merly that I recognise that others will do it and they cannot be stopped.)
They should listen to an old evangelical saying:
"He is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: seriously?
By that logic, Ferrari made speed limits "undefendable" many years ago. In fact, every car made and sold in the US pretty much makes a shambles of speed limits, because every one of them can exceed the limit, thus rendering those limits moot.
(yes, that was sarcasm, in case you missed it)
Richard, basically there are some laws and rules of life that have nothing to do with your ability to do something or not. It has to do with respect and respecting the rule of law. The very basics of file sharing is to ignore the rules of law, to disrespect the wishes of the copyright holders, and to thumb your collective noses at any law that says otherwise. It's a fail from the word go, and if it wasn't for mob rules and a slow legal system, it wouldn't be an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: seriously?
There will always be theives. The point is that the thieves arent stealing, they are just not paying. There is a big difference, and if they never would have paid in the first place, why stop them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously?
There, fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously?
If only you were the ultimate authority of morality. Too bad you're not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously?
But, you know, it being immoral to download a song you can listen to for free on YouTube is clearly the greater evil...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: seriously?
Sarcasm or not, unless you live in a lot different part of the US than I do, they are just signs at the side of the road that give the police the right to play whack the mole for profit. My last trip to the city, 70 in a 60 wasn't enough to keep folks off your bumper, 80 seemed more reasonable and customary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously?
You may be physically able to trade files, but it doesn't change the underlying laws that say it's illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: seriously?
Any law that prohibits free speech is such a law. Any law that restricts access to knowledge is such a law.
Speed limits is not such a law. Copyright in its current incarnation is such a law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: seriously?
You say that's sarcasm but it's entirely true. Have you never been on a highway where the speed limit is 65 yet everyone is going 90? Hell I've been on highways in a group of cars that will go flying past a _police car_ at 20+ MPH past the speed limit and the police don't even care. On the major highways, they only care if you're reckless - weaving between cars and such. If you're just speeding - well hell, even they do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: seriously?
Pinky: Hey, what are we going to do today BREIN ?
BREIN: Why take over the world, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was a little worried because I thought someone hacked my UPS account and was sending overnight letters from Holland to Palto Alto using my account. Needless to say, I contacted UPS and they confirmed that the Consulate actually sent a letter and I had nothing to worry about.
This, in turn persuaded me to contact the DC office of the ROYAL NETHERLANDS EMBASSY Consulate, which I have to say, were real interesting fellows who I'd love to buy a few Heinekens if I ever ran into them. I let them know it was a professional courtesy and that I contacted them.
I guess the point is this: On Tuesday, I actually walked into a UPS office with a big plastic deer under my right arm and wanted to mail it to Mike but the UPS representative I talked to, (oddly named Mike) didn't know who Masnick was. Yes, I shamelessly wanted to send him a big plastic deer and Mike (the UPS guy) said he couldn't take it because:
1) It wasn't boxed (I tried to reason with him that it wasn't funny if it wasn't boxed)
2) They didn't think that because it was going to Mike Masnick was a good enough reason to send an article at no cost.
So I guess, Mike, you need to work on a few things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
argument fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hey moore850
Hey, you make some valid points, and that point of view does have some credibility. But to suggest that it is remotely compelling or important enough to allow bullying corporations strip individuals of their rights of assembly and speech, purely in pursuit of higher profit margins, seems silly to me.
Remember, we are not talking about defending artists here. Organisations like BRIEN are funded by, and act on behalf of the labels, who famously screw the artists out of every dime they possibly can. If they really wanted to help the artists they could start by not ripping them off massive amounts using creative accounting and then only giving them a few % of record sales to pay it back. All they actually want is to line their pockets. So which is more important?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not being familiar with the site, I also wonder what the nature of such discussions are. Is it merely technical (i.e. "I've downloaded all but 1 part, how do I use a .par file to complete it?"), or actually infringing (i.e. "hey guys, I just uploaded a new rip to the alt.binaries.movies group").
The former could certainly be done without direct reference to copyrighted material and be totally within the realms of the law, while the latter would just give the copyright police evidence without having to lift a finger...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This could benifit the filesharers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GOD, Please just crack this rock in 2 and save the rest of the galaxy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Post 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Post 2
The folks at the Consulate were amazingly cordial and I really would enjoy splitting a beer tab with them.
And the deer, well... That's why I thought there was a problem in the first place! It was insane as it was, but to get an email from UPS the next day, well, that just takes the cake.
I wish I could make this up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Post 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech
Not an option anywhere.
The best free speech is to keep your damn mouth shut, your head low and your hoodie up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#2 - The second rule of File Sharing Club is, you DO NOT talk about File Sharing Club.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police State
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
George Orwell was spinning in his grave, laughing the whole time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When will IP disappear?
Intellectual property is a concept that will eventually disappear as technology evolves to the point where a system of trying to monetize an infinite good costs more than it generates.
When will that time come?
When the companies trying to protect IP cannot pay the governments enough to cover the actual costs of enforcing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: bizzare plastic deer story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: bizzare plastic deer story
PS Based on your semi-recommendation of sorts, I saw him this afternoon- as he doesn't work Fridays. He told me I need to continue finding a way to get this big plastic deer to Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brilliant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please stop using the "free speech" crap unless you are talking about censorship by a government agency in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]