Finnish Court Orders ISP To Kick Accused File Sharers Off The Internet

from the alert-the-UN dept

Wed, Jun 29th 2011 4:30pm — Mike Masnick

Despite a recent UN report that condemns the idea of kicking people off the internet as a civil rights violation, a court in Finland has agreed with a request by the record labels to kick three accused files sharers off the internet with no notice at all. This isn't three strikes. It's basically one-strike. Record labels accuse... court tells ISP to kick them off. I'm so sure that'll make people start buying music again.

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: file sharing, finland, injunction, internet access

65 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2011 @ 4:55pm

You said: "I'm so sure that'll make people start buying music again."

Me: I am always amazed by this snarky comment. It is as if you think there needs to be some direct cause and effect, 1 to 1 connection for any action to be valid.

Sometimes, it's just a matter of what is right, regardless of the bottom line.

Now, in the meantime, if you actually read the story, you would see that the labels went to court and the court issued an injunction to disconnect the users, under existing laws in the country.

Considering that these connections were specifically responsible for a large amount of file sharing, it seems a pretty reasonable action.

Too bad you don't have another source besides torrent freak, it seems a very one sided report.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2011 @ 5:00pm
  
  Re:
  If it's about right and wrong, how about the right/wrong of corporate interests absconding with our (US), and much of the world's governments through bribery, obfuscation and intimidation? That seems kinda wrong to me. Especially since it's to support a dead business model and with the collateral damage of free expression.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2011 @ 5:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Not sure what this generic ramble has to do with the court decision.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 3:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "generic ramble" is much too kind. How about something like "verbal diarrhea"?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2011 @ 5:12pm
  
  Re:
  Seems reasonable to me that a court, applying its national law, issues a decision that some may not like.
  
  Could this happen in the US? Under current law, probably not.
  
  Looks to me like this is a good reason to live in the US, even if one may disagree with some of its laws (in which case they have the freedom to express their concerns at the ballot box).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 29 Jun 2011 @ 11:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Uuh...that's an illusion. I have successfully predicted every election since just after I could talk. And I'm not even American.
    
    I'm almost positive that it would happen were certain entities unwilling to change involved.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Huph, 30 Jun 2011 @ 8:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Every election? Comptrollers, too?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2011 @ 6:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    'This' is a good reason to live in the US? How sad and scantimonius are you? I live in Finland, and while I don't agree with everything that goes on here, it is certainly no reason to move to the US, All my healtcare comes at a reasonable price, my annual leave is 12 weeks, I can walk the streets of any city, day or night, without fear and I live in a Country were all are entitled to the best education in the world. By the way, we also have the freedom to express our concerns at the ballot box, it is not, despite what you seem to think, only an American option!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Whitetail, 29 Jun 2011 @ 5:59pm
  
  Re:
  The point you love to miss is that these types of actions are fail for many reasons:
  
  * They will not drive people back to purchasing music.
  * They will not make the business of selling plastic discs obscenely profitable again.
  * They will not fix the the tarnished reputation of the **AA's, which are in dire need of repair.
  * They squander the **AA's cash pool in a missguided attempt to turn time back to when they did nothing but let the millions roll in, which in turn limits the **AA's ability to adapt to disruptive technologies/trends.
  * They tie down courts that could be used to dispense actual justice.
  * And they waste alot of tax payer money.
  
  There is no 'win' in this strategy, and Mike Points that out consistantly and clearly in these posts. If there is no business sense in these actions, then why spend the money to litigate? Morality? Ethics? Ignorance?
  
  The wise direction for a Business facing disruption by competition/technology/Shifting_Social_landscapes is to learn AND adapt. Whinning, pouting, and treating your actual customers like criminals is a fasttrack to the end of your business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2011 @ 6:56pm
  
  Re:
  I actually think that it is a matter of what is right, but I think we may disagree on what is right.
  
  I don't think that kicking someone off of the internet is right. You can't kill anyone with an internet.
  
  I also don't think that a well funded special interest group lobbying to change laws to favor them and then using the laws to punish citizens is right.
  
  I do understand that you accept copyright as right, and you disagree, and that's really fine. But when a business begins to pursue judgments against people, not to make money, but out of some subjective notion of right and wrong, I think that's far more dangerous than piracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nicedoggy, 29 Jun 2011 @ 7:05pm
  
  Re:
  Well those people are not taking action because they don't care about sales, their all raison d'�tre is because of sales, the bottom line or else they wouldn't be doing any of this.
  
  Doubt?
  
  It is an actual crime to make false claims on works in the public domain and yet you don't see any TV, club, entity or individual being prosecuted for it, where is that crap about "it's just a matter of what is right"?
  
  Where was the prosecutors when Universal falsely claimed copyright on King Kong and sued Nintendo?
  
  http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/06/copyfraud
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 29 Jun 2011 @ 7:26pm
  
  Re:
  Sometimes, it's just a matter of what is right, regardless of the bottom line.
  
  Not if you're a corporation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2011 @ 8:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The point is any single case isn't decided upon on the basis of what it, and it alone, can take to the bottom line. Mike Masnick seems to think that the only reason to take legal action would be if suddenly those users would become buyers. That is just not logical.
    
    Sometimes, it is question of what is right, just, and legal, and not at all a question of direct bottom line results from any single action. Maybe over thousands of legal actions, over time, that the mentality of file traders as a whole, not the individuals involved will change. That might go to the bottom line, but no single action leads to direct bottom line results. Doing what is right will perhaps lead to a better bottom line, and that may be enough.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AW (profile), 29 Jun 2011 @ 10:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What's right...you're serious about this? How dense are you people defending this? It's as though you have no ability to read, learn from history or think in any way. If you don't understand what is wrong with the laws in the first place, then you never will. This kind of thinking is why America is a dying country. So went Rome, so went Egypt, so went Persia...entitlement is the stranglehold of any civilization. It's too bad you can't see just how much you're ruining things for your children. Within 50 years, you will regret every word you've written unless you're the one who benefits. More than likely though you'll be dead because you couldn't afford the medication locked up in patent protection and the massive debt from the lawsuits that are "good and right" will ensure your family is left nothing. I can't say we'll be worse off when you leeches are gone.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 3:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, when they're gone, we're gonna have to find a new boogyman. Not that there'll be any shortage of 'em in this country or any other.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nicedoggy, 30 Jun 2011 @ 12:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Quote:
      The point is any single case isn't decided upon on the basis of what it, and it alone, can take to the bottom line. Mike Masnick seems to think that the only reason to take legal action would be if suddenly those users would become buyers. That is just not logical.
      
      And you keep acting like companies are doing this to defend justice, when they have no interest in doing so, that is more illogical but you still defend that unsustainable position. Sometimes is just about the bottom line and that is it, are you saying those companies don't care about the bottom line, they are there just to uphold justice and fairness and all that is good? Because when it is about that and only that people don't even pay attention to the law only when economic interests are involved that things get serious. For those companies nobody here is under any illusion that this has anything to do with right, just and legal, everybody knows is about the bottom line and trying to improve it.
      
      Quote:
      Sometimes, it is question of what is right, just, and legal, and not at all a question of direct bottom line results from any single action.
      
      And as others already pointed out to you, this is clearly not one of those cases.
      
      Quote:
      Maybe over thousands of legal actions, over time, that the mentality of file traders as a whole, not the individuals involved will change.
      
      Well if by file traders you mean caring, sharing people we are pissed, but somehow I doubt that is the answer you are looking for.
      
      Speaking for myself I'm so pissed that I'm not buying, supporting or consuming that crap anymore, I found legal alternatives that if not on the same level (technically or artistically) are still free as in freedom to use, modify and distribute, to all content owners that believe they are entitled to anything a say "F. You!".
      
      More I do transmit movies and music to cellphones(my wife and some friends) and if I ever get caught and am brought to "justice" the first thing I will file is a "copyright misuse" claim(Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds), if that doesn't work I will file the F.U. Form and sent it to the judge and plaintiffs.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2011 @ 12:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sometimes, it is question of what is right, just, and legal, and not at all a question of direct bottom line results from any single action.
      
      Kicking people off the internet on the basis of mere accusations by some company is neither right nor just.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 12:16am
  
  Re:
  "Considering that these connections were specifically responsible for a large amount of file sharing, it seems a pretty reasonable action."
  
  Ah, blindly accepting the word of record labels, who have been shown to have identified the wrong people many times with their flimsy "evidence". I'm not surprised you want corporate desires attended to before any form of real justice in a court of law. I only wish the "pirates" had your IP address and the addresses of those like you so that you could experience your idea of "justice" based on nothing more than an accusation...
  
  "Too bad you don't have another source besides torrent freak, it seems a very one sided report."
  
  Feel free to provide what you consider to be an "unbiased" source. Sadly, there seem to be few other sources outside of Finland reporting this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2011 @ 12:21am
  
  Re:
  Sometimes, it's just a matter of what is right, regardless of the bottom line.
  
  And, sometimes, it's just a matter of what is wrong, like punishing people on the basis of mere accusations.
  
  Now, in the meantime, if you actually read the story, you would see that the labels went to court and the court issued an injunction to disconnect the users, under existing laws in the country.
  
  If you actually read the article above, that's what it basically says. So why are you pretending otherwise?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 1:09am
  
  Re:
  Sometimes, it's just a matter of what is right, regardless of the bottom line.
  
  What would be right would be not to have copyright laws in the first place - then these issues would never arise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 29 Jun 2011 @ 5:32pm

Geez, Mike, you've already convinced me that file-sharing is suspect.
Quit trying to back me into supporting the copyright tyrants! I'm beginning to wonder if /you/ aren't an agent /for/ the MPAA!

Look, it's EASY to spot file sharing on any scale by simply analyzing data packets. When that's /egregious/ (pick your own point), it's not only EASY to stop but almost required so long as copyright exists -- and I'm for that under 1960's terms -- sothink /this/ reasonable and that most people would find it so and agree with the decision.

Yet, as already snarked above, all you've got in response is a little ankle-biter yip when you're blatantly wrong on how events will turn out, some sort of Pollyanna outlook that doesn't serve we reasonable people well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 29 Jun 2011 @ 5:47pm
  
  Re: Geez, Mike, you've already convinced me that file-sharing is suspect.
  "Look, it's EASY to spot file sharing on any scale by simply analyzing data packets."
  
  You've just pissed off a multitude of videogamers with your inane thought process.
  
  Warcraft
  DnDOnline
  Nexus Gaming
  Mabinogi Players
  Steam and the 74+ MILLION gamers around the world.
  
  And guess what, they're not infringing. They just want to play a game in peace.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BeeAitch (profile), 29 Jun 2011 @ 8:03pm
    
    Re: Re: Geez, Mike, you've already convinced me that file-sharing is suspect.
    Not to mention linux geeks. In the last week I've torrented Sabayon 6, Debian Stable, and Backtrack 5 ISOs.
    
    All non-infringing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 4:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Geez, Mike, you've already convinced me that file-sharing is suspect.
      You're wasting your time trying to convince a paid shill that his views are fallacious. That's what he does for a living - shilling.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2011 @ 4:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Geez, Mike, you've already convinced me that file-sharing is suspect.
      But what's the point? You have faster sponsored FTP connections, and you don't need to leave that pesky resource hogging torrent process running. Torrents are completely useless for *nix. It's a weak defense, stick with the gamers please.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DannyB (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 6:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Geez, Mike, you've already convinced me that file-sharing is suspect.
        Linux distributions were once distributed by FTP and HTTP.
        
        That was burdensome on the server.
        
        THE VERY REASON that bit torrent was invented was to distribute the burden. If you don't like that resource hogging torrent process, then stop it after you have completed your download.
        
        Free and open source projects don't all have sponsored high bandwidth servers. That's the reason for bit torrent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2011 @ 4:57am
    
    Re: Re: Geez, Mike, you've already convinced me that file-sharing is suspect.
    Real geeks don't torrent. (trademarked!)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2011 @ 5:55pm
  
  Re: Geez, Mike, you've already convinced me that file-sharing is suspect.
  Ignoring your trivialization of how easy it is to determine whether or not a specific file is or is not infringing it would be easy to catch all criminals if we listened to everyone's phone calls and read all of their emails and text messages, so your assumption that the kind of invasion of privacy you are suggesting would be "reasonable" seems far from it for what amounts to a civil matter best resolved in small claims court.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2011 @ 6:09pm
    
    Re: Re: Geez, Mike, you've already convinced me that file-sharing is suspect.
    Privacy doesn't exist on the Internet, and neither should freedom.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DannyB (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 6:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Geez, Mike, you've already convinced me that file-sharing is suspect.
      Try reading my encrypted packets.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 29 Jun 2011 @ 11:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Geez, Mike, you've already convinced me that file-sharing is suspect.
    And that's the whole point. It should be done in small claims, as oppoosed to legalised government bribery.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Timo, 29 Jun 2011 @ 6:58pm

Just want to say Elisa has not disconnected anyone yet. They might go to a higher court, whatever that process is. I'm not sure. In any case, if anyone is disconnected they can open a new account with another provider. Basically, just a waste of time and tax payer's money. Not to mention no one provided evidence of any wrongdoing.

The content maffia calls the judge. The judge orders the ISP to disconnect. No trial. No contest of evidence. Nothing. Just the way they like it in North Korea.

And judging by the RIAA lap dog's reaction here (AC). Just the way he likes it too.

The Finnish Pirate Party has made a statement.
http://www.piraattipuolue.fi/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicedoggy, 29 Jun 2011 @ 7:11pm

I hope there is a country out there that let people bring charges against copyfraudster and it get splashed all over the news then we will see.

This f'ing asymmetric law enforcement BS is just unbelievable.

IP laws actually take away the people's right to have their grievances heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2011 @ 7:16pm

worldaudit.org lists Finland at the top of virtually every category: democracy, lack of corruption, free press, etc. So one of the most highly esteemed countries in the world kicks egregious infringers off the net, what does that say? Maybe it isn't the evil MPAA/RIAA world shadow government pulling strings and manipulating entire nations. Maybe well-regarded nations also have come to their own conclusion that intellectual property is still property and deserves protection from predation. More and more countries are taking even more harsh measures than those contemplated in the US. To ascribe these initiatives to the RIAA/MPAA either themselves or through the US government is pure naivety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 29 Jun 2011 @ 9:46pm
  
  Re:
  And what is it to assume that corruption and regulatory capture are not involved?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2011 @ 12:28am
  
  Re:
  So one of the most highly esteemed countries in the world kicks egregious infringers off the net, what does that say?
  
  You left out the word "alleged" in front of "infringers".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2011 @ 12:33am
  
  Re:
  worldaudit.org is a joke.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2011 @ 6:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    "worldaudit.org is a joke."
    
    [citation needed]
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 4:12am
  
  Re:
  Highly esteemed by who? Another bunch of paid bullshit artists? Yeah, sure!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2011 @ 7:19pm

@Nicedoggy

"Where was the prosecutors when Universal falsely claimed copyright on King Kong and sued Nintendo?"

What criminal statute do you believe was violated and why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nicedoggy, 29 Jun 2011 @ 7:26pm
  
  Re:
  Quote:
  (c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. � Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
  
  Source:
  http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
  
  I want to see prosecutors go after those people who keep putting false copyright claims in everything and charge those people $2500 for each and every false notice they issued.
  
  http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/false-copyright-claims.html
  
  But that is not going to happen is it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nicedoggy, 29 Jun 2011 @ 7:44pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The paragraph's name is "� 506. Criminal offenses"
    
    That have two problems:
    
    1. $2500 dollars is laughable for any company, so they just will keep doing it until the end of times, why can't people put percent of earnings to make equitable laws that will have the same effect if you are poor or rich? We all learn math in schools early on and the first thing you learn is fractions, even cooks know how to use those, but congress apparently was never in school.
    
    2. Is criminal, meaning no person can start a proceeding only the state on behalf of people, which is to say never, apparently since no one case ever was filled against anyone anywhere, but the law is there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicedoggy, 29 Jun 2011 @ 7:19pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasercomb_Am.,_Inc._v._R eynolds

Maybe people should start filling Copyright Misuse defenses against copyright absurds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2011 @ 7:39pm

Perhaps not every copyright claim that is not sustained was not made with fraudulent intent.

"Under common law, three elements are required to prove fraud: a material false statement made with an intent to deceive (scienter), a victim�s reliance on the statement and damages."

While fraud and fraudulent intent are not interchangeable as legal terms, the core act seems to be a knowingly false statement calculated to deceive. It's unlikely that any General Counsel would ever put his company in such a position. So again, having a copyright claim thrown out is not in and of itself evidence of fraud or fraudulent intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nicedoggy, 29 Jun 2011 @ 7:53pm
  
  Re:
  You know why Universal lost King Kong case against Nintendo?
  
  Because they said in another trial that King Kong was in the public domain.
  
  If that doesn't prove knowledge and intent to defraud I don't know what does.
  
  Also, many people know they were they are getting things, if it is from the public domain you know where it came from, but never the less they still put a copyright noticed on everything is that not fraud?
  
  Are broadcasters not aware of their rights and limitations?
  They have legal teams just for that and you are trying to say they didn't know things weren't copyrightable?
  
  These are not individuals with little to no money, we are talking big business with entire legal teams whith the sole purpose of "clearing" things and they still claim copyright on everything even if they don't own it, knowingly, are you saying those legal teams are not aware of what is in the public domain or not?
  
  If there were uncertainties would it not be prudent to not put any copyright notice since it is a "CRIME"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nicedoggy, 29 Jun 2011 @ 7:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Also if it is about the "right thing" why is the state not being aggressive like they are on the other side?
    
    I see people stretching the law to make it fit views, but I don't see them trying to enforce all the laws just some the convenient ones apparently.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aikoaiko2, 30 Jun 2011 @ 6:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    Makes you wonder how an individual is supposed to know what is infringing if a giant corporation can't determine if King Kong is public domain or not. A point made here many times that seems to be forgotten everytime this topic comes up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 4:15am
  
  Re:
  Perhaps there really are dragons and unicorns? Equal probababiity for your bogus assertions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 29 Jun 2011 @ 8:01pm

So The pirate bay has not have more than 3 strikes yet ?
Now, under Section 60c of Finland�s Copyright Act, a court has granted CIAPC injunctions in three of the cases.

You would think that even Mike would be able to understand that a court issued INJUNCTION, is a very long way from just being 'ACCUSED'.

And it might well be 3 strikes,

first song,,, first strike
Second song./. strike two
Third Song.... Your OUT!!!

So what did they have ?

CIAPC discovered five Internet connections which were making available thousands of music tracks on file-sharing networks.

How many strikes has "THE PIRATE BAY" allready had again ?

Alot more than 3, get over it mike,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 29 Jun 2011 @ 11:26pm
  
  Re: So The pirate bay has not have more than 3 strikes yet ?
  TPB is a search engine for a particular filetype: in this case, .torrent.
  
  .Torrent does not yet equal .crime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2011 @ 11:38pm
    
    Re: Re: So The pirate bay has not have more than 3 strikes yet ?
    No, but making thousands of files illegally available from your internet connection is .illegal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 12:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re: So The pirate bay has not have more than 3 strikes yet ?
      ....which is something that TPB is not involved in since they don't host the files.
      
      Why is it that people like you are so dead set against due process, fair trials and actually going after the ones who commit the crimes rather than the easy targets?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2011 @ 12:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re: So The pirate bay has not have more than 3 strikes yet ?
      No, but making thousands of files illegally available from your internet connection is .illegal.
      
      TPB doesn't do that, you lying sack of industry shill.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2011 @ 6:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So The pirate bay has not have more than 3 strikes yet ?
        TPB isn't being shut down here, 3 file traders are.
        
        .keep .up .with .the .story .dirtbag
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 1 Jul 2011 @ 12:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So The pirate bay has not have more than 3 strikes yet ?
        So, he shouldn't bring up TPB in a comment thread responding to darryl's mention of TPB? Great logic there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nicedoggy, 30 Jun 2011 @ 2:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re: So The pirate bay has not have more than 3 strikes yet ?
      Since when?
      
      I make hundreds of files available from my internet connection, my wife have access to our entire music library legally purchased with her phone, are you saying that is illegal?
      
      God I'm a pirate.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 4:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So The pirate bay has not have more than 3 strikes yet ?
        I'd rather be a pirate with a measure of self respect, than an industry apologist whose actions would embarrass the cheapest whore on the Bowery.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 5:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So The pirate bay has not have more than 3 strikes yet ?
        They're putting the legendary Jack Sparrow to shame.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2011 @ 12:41am
  
  Re: So The pirate bay has not have more than 3 strikes yet ?
  You would think that even Mike would be able to understand that a court issued INJUNCTION, is a very long way from just being 'ACCUSED'.
  
  Yes, it's known as punishing the innocent. Being punished is indeed quite far from just being accused and shouldn't happen until after a finding of guilt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicedoggy, 29 Jun 2011 @ 8:27pm

Also if you ever get caught copying anything even if it is infringing, file quickly a "copyright misuse" defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasercomb_Am.,_Inc._v._Reynolds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 12:17am

Yeah!!!! no more french, no more finnish, no more south koreans on the internet. Hoo-rah!!!

and thank God, Lord Mandelson, and the british PM's for the DEA ... No more brits on the internet !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2011 @ 1:36am

re: "Look, it's EASY to spot file sharing on any scale by simply analyzing data packets."
>>> Look, it's EASY to spot file sharing on any scale by simply analyzing data packets.

You're probably correct - today.
But you can be sure that tomorrow's piracy will be encrypted and obfuscated and deliberately designed to be indistinguishable from legitimate traffic.

Tomorrow's war on copyright infringement WILL result in collateral damage, and worse than what we see today. Just how much damage do you regard as acceptable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 30 Jun 2011 @ 3:19am
  
  Re: re: "Look, it's EASY to spot file sharing on any scale by simply analyzing data packets."
  Apparently, the heat death of the universe is acceptabl;e collateral.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tito, 1 Jul 2011 @ 1:09am

Finland?!
Last year Finland supposedly made broadband access a legal right for every citizen:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10461048

Also:
"We will have a policy where operators will send letters to illegal file-sharers but we are not planning on cutting off access," said Ms Linden.

What happened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finland, 1 Jul 2011 @ 9:32am

What happened
warningletters were deemed unconstitunational. Only cops with 'reasonable suspicion' + warrant are allowed to snoop...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]