Netherlands bans illegal downloading(translate.google.com)
translate.google.com
Netherlands bans illegal downloading
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftweakers.net%2Fnieuws%2F95335%2Fkabinet-nederland-heeft-per-direct-downloadverbod.html&edit-text=&act=url
59 comments
Quite a funny headline. Maybe someone should think about issuing a blanket ban of everything illegal? ;-)
No, we don't want that. A while ago there was even a headline here that boils down to 'Illegality will not be punishable'.
This was about people residing in the country illegally. Everyone understands the headline immediately, but it's still pretty ridiculous.
This was about people residing in the country illegally. Everyone understands the headline immediately, but it's still pretty ridiculous.
Well, the Netherlands had a problematic court case some time back, and this fixes it. Well, if you're a copyright owner it was problematic.
You see copyright law technically doesn't restrict illegal downloading. It only limits distribution, and technically that means uploading, not downloading. So there was a series of court cases that said as much [1].
So now that case has been invalidated, and downloading material without a licence is now judged illegal in the Netherlands (like everywhere else).
One caveat that this case has for copyright holders is that it was judged to be a civil offence, not a criminal one. So illegal downloading cannot use police resources, and the copyright owner must sue (or appoint someone to sue on their behalf) before any action can be taken by the courts. Such action can only include financial sanctions [2], no jail time or impounding.
[1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/113968/article.html [2] keep in mind that not paying a court-ordered restitution IS a criminal offence. So turning a civil offence into a criminal one is possible. It has historically not been done (meaning in the last century, before that it was actually common).
You see copyright law technically doesn't restrict illegal downloading. It only limits distribution, and technically that means uploading, not downloading. So there was a series of court cases that said as much [1].
So now that case has been invalidated, and downloading material without a licence is now judged illegal in the Netherlands (like everywhere else).
One caveat that this case has for copyright holders is that it was judged to be a civil offence, not a criminal one. So illegal downloading cannot use police resources, and the copyright owner must sue (or appoint someone to sue on their behalf) before any action can be taken by the courts. Such action can only include financial sanctions [2], no jail time or impounding.
[1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/113968/article.html [2] keep in mind that not paying a court-ordered restitution IS a criminal offence. So turning a civil offence into a criminal one is possible. It has historically not been done (meaning in the last century, before that it was actually common).
> (like everywhere else).
To my knowledge in Germany and the entire USA only uploading is illegal, not downloading. Because of this only people who use file-sharing software like bittorrent or similar get sued.
Acting against the downloading itself is a whole new ballgame.
To my knowledge in Germany and the entire USA only uploading is illegal, not downloading. Because of this only people who use file-sharing software like bittorrent or similar get sued.
Acting against the downloading itself is a whole new ballgame.
When will the world catch up with the fact that The Netherlands is not more the liberal country it once was? The boringness of Denmark combined with the social problems of the UK, that's where it's heading.
This story is not about liberalness, it's about a levy and the EU court ruling. The country comparison is like comparing apples to oranges. I'm an ex UK citizen who now lives in the Netherlands and you couldn't be further off the mark sir.
So illegal downloading is a "liberal" thing really?; if someone has been hurted by it is indie labels and film-makers for whom realizing an artistic vision was once at least a bit profitable. Not the big fish who still can make money producing shallow generic crap for the masses and can take the damage of a huge statistical slice that doesn't pay for it.
Many indie artists have chosen to release their music for free as piracy lowers the bar for them to acquire a broader fan-base. Similarly indie filmmakers want their films to be seen. They still generate the same amount of money they would anyway from die hard indie movie fans who attend indie theaters.
Both do better with more people being aware of them and their content being seen or heard by more people. And, they are not the ones who are going to afford the types of lobbying and legal prosecution that it takes to go after their downloaders.
The only people benefiting from these laws are the very large studios which continue to pull in record profits year after year. The people hurting is everyone else.
Both do better with more people being aware of them and their content being seen or heard by more people. And, they are not the ones who are going to afford the types of lobbying and legal prosecution that it takes to go after their downloaders.
The only people benefiting from these laws are the very large studios which continue to pull in record profits year after year. The people hurting is everyone else.
I would like to see some true backing for that. There are so many cool indie productions out there it's hard to imagine it was once even better.
Also I cannot imagine those indie movie makers profiting much from robber baron constructions like BUMA STEMRA, all indie music makers I know personally really hate their guts and feel stolen because they are forced to pay their fees to play gigs or press vinyl but never ever get a decent kick back.
Also I cannot imagine those indie movie makers profiting much from robber baron constructions like BUMA STEMRA, all indie music makers I know personally really hate their guts and feel stolen because they are forced to pay their fees to play gigs or press vinyl but never ever get a decent kick back.
As well as a migrant population whose extremist religious observance tests the patience of the long-standing Dutch tolerance and liberal values.
In places with the most migrants (Amsterdam), the long-standing Dutch tolerance and liberal values aren't at risk or being tested.
Areas with nearly no migrants and no long-standing tolerance or liberal values continue to have no migrants and no tolerance or liberalism.
A few very poor areas with poor populations continue to suck for both 'migrants' and 'native Dutch', as they always have. Both sides and a few opportunist populists overplay these areas. This situation would exist if the 'migrants' were Muslim, Catholics, or Rastafarians, because it really isn't about values, but instead economics and racism.
Areas with nearly no migrants and no long-standing tolerance or liberal values continue to have no migrants and no tolerance or liberalism.
A few very poor areas with poor populations continue to suck for both 'migrants' and 'native Dutch', as they always have. Both sides and a few opportunist populists overplay these areas. This situation would exist if the 'migrants' were Muslim, Catholics, or Rastafarians, because it really isn't about values, but instead economics and racism.
Funny you mention Amsterdam, where a large portion of the original inhabitants moved to Almere which accidentally happens to be one of the hotspots of the PVV. People tend to vote with their feet if nobody listens to them. Same happened in Suriname.
Not that I don't agree to the fact that Amsterdam still is one of the coolest places in the world also because of all the different people living there together. But sometimes you could acknowledge that not everybody that comes to Amsterdam comes with the idea to make it a better place together. Wouldn't you agree a true citizen of Amsterdam would be tolerant toward people of the same sex walking hand in hand?
But the famous red light district has been closed for a large part, new ridiculous rules for coffeeshops, ban on magic mushrooms (together with a rush of half or non true news items that seemed a throwback to the time the US wanted to ban marijuana in the 1920's and needed popular support for that).
It just goes on and on and on and all measures really only seem to affect people's liberties never the true criminals.
Not that I don't agree to the fact that Amsterdam still is one of the coolest places in the world also because of all the different people living there together. But sometimes you could acknowledge that not everybody that comes to Amsterdam comes with the idea to make it a better place together. Wouldn't you agree a true citizen of Amsterdam would be tolerant toward people of the same sex walking hand in hand?
But the famous red light district has been closed for a large part, new ridiculous rules for coffeeshops, ban on magic mushrooms (together with a rush of half or non true news items that seemed a throwback to the time the US wanted to ban marijuana in the 1920's and needed popular support for that).
It just goes on and on and on and all measures really only seem to affect people's liberties never the true criminals.
Let's not forget that the tension is in large part because of institutional discrimination against those (religious) minorities.
Free faith-based schools and generous social benefits is institutional discrimination?
If that's true, how would you explain that tensions like that, and much, much, much worse exist everywhere that minority lives ? Especially in places where said minority is in fact a majority.
I mean, I'm all for tolerance. But denying the problem makes it worse. Even denying that this particular "minority" is particularly problematic, it might seem discriminatory, but it's also the blatant in-your-face truth. That makes it worth pointing out, and worth asking the simple question : why ?
In most religions the founder was the instigator of large-scale warfare (usually a foreignor or otherwise non-local person that managed to whip a large group of people into open revolt, like Moses or Muhammad). In islam, this is particularly obvious, as it's prophet probably came from Syria, and is responsible for massacres totalling at least 10000 bodies.
But islam is an exception in the opposite way of Christianity. Where Christianity is famous for choosing not to fight in situations where reasonable people would probably have picked up arms. Additionally Christianity is famous for having guilt for actions that Christians at best contributed to, but that no reasonable person can consider state actions. America is a good example, who feel guilty for massacring native Americans. Well, reading the history books, tell me this : what killed native Americans ? Conflict with the colonists ? Or diseases the colonists carried (which they did not know they carried at the time. And yes, some assholes existed. But look at historical massacres in, say, India. Tell me this : were they an accidental situation + a few assholes ? Or were they a systematically coordinated extermination campaign organized and carried out by an army ?). Good look finding a Turk that feels guilt about the Armenian massacre. Or a Pakistani that feels guilty about the partition massacres, about causing the biggest massacre of the 20th century, and then doing it again a decade later. Or an Iranian that feels guilt about the massacres they committed recently (ie. 30 years ago) in Iraq. Or an Iraqi that feels guilty about what Irak's army did in Iran. Or a Maroccan that feels guilty about what happened in Western Sahara to the indigenous population. Or ... Sorry to state the obvious, but this is part of muslim culture.
Islam is famous for committing huge massacres in small conflicts. This was true when islam was 1 year old (and 200 years away from being a religion), and it's true today. And yes, we do know islam was famous for committing massacres when it was very young, because we have written accounts of negotations between the prophet's emissaries and local leaders that say exactly that, both in the islamic history version of them, and in kept records. Muslim religious history accounts, incidentally, don't deny this : Islam massacred an entire city in a conflict was essentially about the location of Muhammad's tent camp, which was judged not sufficiently prestigious by him (He was a slave -and other wares- trader at the time). Another city was massacred because they did not let a woman "marry" one of the muslim commanders. This is not denied in those historical accounts, this is told, and presented as the way people should behave. What was massacred in the name of Islam recently, I don't think requires any real explanations.
But all this sort of talk, while it can prepare one for what is coming ("he who doesn't know history is doomed to repeat it" and all), is water under the bridge. Whether or not we tolerate islam is not a decision we can make, or anyone can make really. This is going to frustrate a lot of people, but it is simply not how history works. Everybody seems to be under the ridiculous impression that this is the first time Europe sees massive muslim immigration, that racism is new, or that current attitudes to immigrants are particularly innovative somehow ... when of course in reality it's more like the tenth time this happens. Of course, the ten previous times can pretty much be summarized like this : muslims move in, get into ever more conflicts, commit genocide but suffer military defeat, get shot/knifed in large numbers and islam gets outlawed.
So let's ask ourselves the question : if history is to be learned from, what's coming is a large scale "terrorist" act, not with a single perpetrator, but a large group of muslims (say 500-1000 or more) committing a large scale massacre in a large European city, then the local army moves in, and after the soldiers see the dead bodies "somehow" every muslim gets killed, including a couple hundred that weren't part of the "terrorist" act.
What will the response to that be ?
And sorry to point out the obvious : most people are against war because of the very real costs wars have on normal people. That is the real cause of tolerance, not some moral imperative. The (justified) fear of war, fear of conflict. Needless to say, when the generally observed cost of not going to war massively exceeds the cost of going to war, this will reverse. So the response of modern states is not going to be all that different from the response of the hundreds of states that have historically faced this issue.
I mean, I'm all for tolerance. But denying the problem makes it worse. Even denying that this particular "minority" is particularly problematic, it might seem discriminatory, but it's also the blatant in-your-face truth. That makes it worth pointing out, and worth asking the simple question : why ?
In most religions the founder was the instigator of large-scale warfare (usually a foreignor or otherwise non-local person that managed to whip a large group of people into open revolt, like Moses or Muhammad). In islam, this is particularly obvious, as it's prophet probably came from Syria, and is responsible for massacres totalling at least 10000 bodies.
But islam is an exception in the opposite way of Christianity. Where Christianity is famous for choosing not to fight in situations where reasonable people would probably have picked up arms. Additionally Christianity is famous for having guilt for actions that Christians at best contributed to, but that no reasonable person can consider state actions. America is a good example, who feel guilty for massacring native Americans. Well, reading the history books, tell me this : what killed native Americans ? Conflict with the colonists ? Or diseases the colonists carried (which they did not know they carried at the time. And yes, some assholes existed. But look at historical massacres in, say, India. Tell me this : were they an accidental situation + a few assholes ? Or were they a systematically coordinated extermination campaign organized and carried out by an army ?). Good look finding a Turk that feels guilt about the Armenian massacre. Or a Pakistani that feels guilty about the partition massacres, about causing the biggest massacre of the 20th century, and then doing it again a decade later. Or an Iranian that feels guilt about the massacres they committed recently (ie. 30 years ago) in Iraq. Or an Iraqi that feels guilty about what Irak's army did in Iran. Or a Maroccan that feels guilty about what happened in Western Sahara to the indigenous population. Or ... Sorry to state the obvious, but this is part of muslim culture.
Islam is famous for committing huge massacres in small conflicts. This was true when islam was 1 year old (and 200 years away from being a religion), and it's true today. And yes, we do know islam was famous for committing massacres when it was very young, because we have written accounts of negotations between the prophet's emissaries and local leaders that say exactly that, both in the islamic history version of them, and in kept records. Muslim religious history accounts, incidentally, don't deny this : Islam massacred an entire city in a conflict was essentially about the location of Muhammad's tent camp, which was judged not sufficiently prestigious by him (He was a slave -and other wares- trader at the time). Another city was massacred because they did not let a woman "marry" one of the muslim commanders. This is not denied in those historical accounts, this is told, and presented as the way people should behave. What was massacred in the name of Islam recently, I don't think requires any real explanations.
But all this sort of talk, while it can prepare one for what is coming ("he who doesn't know history is doomed to repeat it" and all), is water under the bridge. Whether or not we tolerate islam is not a decision we can make, or anyone can make really. This is going to frustrate a lot of people, but it is simply not how history works. Everybody seems to be under the ridiculous impression that this is the first time Europe sees massive muslim immigration, that racism is new, or that current attitudes to immigrants are particularly innovative somehow ... when of course in reality it's more like the tenth time this happens. Of course, the ten previous times can pretty much be summarized like this : muslims move in, get into ever more conflicts, commit genocide but suffer military defeat, get shot/knifed in large numbers and islam gets outlawed.
So let's ask ourselves the question : if history is to be learned from, what's coming is a large scale "terrorist" act, not with a single perpetrator, but a large group of muslims (say 500-1000 or more) committing a large scale massacre in a large European city, then the local army moves in, and after the soldiers see the dead bodies "somehow" every muslim gets killed, including a couple hundred that weren't part of the "terrorist" act.
What will the response to that be ?
And sorry to point out the obvious : most people are against war because of the very real costs wars have on normal people. That is the real cause of tolerance, not some moral imperative. The (justified) fear of war, fear of conflict. Needless to say, when the generally observed cost of not going to war massively exceeds the cost of going to war, this will reverse. So the response of modern states is not going to be all that different from the response of the hundreds of states that have historically faced this issue.
Look man, nobody cares about how much you love Jesus and hate Mohammed. Just start a blog and leave us alone.
As I said, I don't care. I don't believe anyone has any choice in this, so opinions don't matter. Yours. Mine. That doesn't stop me from stating my opinion. Really, I see this as nothing more than a writing exercise. It's more fun than the writing I do at my job, and that, well I need that.
Also I work in the US. I have controversial opinions, which I believe to be based on obvious facts, but for obvious reasons I don't express them at work.
So here we are. What should we do ?
Also I work in the US. I have controversial opinions, which I believe to be based on obvious facts, but for obvious reasons I don't express them at work.
So here we are. What should we do ?
Since you can stop yourself stating these obvious facts at work, can you stop doing it here, too, please?
I disagree with that charge and am actively against it. I am grateful for waps's insight. It is absolutely dead-on based on my experiences and not only that, it was good writing. It helped me express in words some unconscious ideas and emotions that I've been having.
As well as a politician whose xenophobic and racist remarks tests the patience of the long-standing Dutch tolerance and liberal values
Thanks for making me feel good :'(
This is not specific to The Netherlands, it holds for all EU member states that did not already have laws declaring downloading of copyrighted material illegal.
The case for Germany is kind of weird, though: downloading is illegal, but streaming is not (or, to be more precise, it's the streaming service's job to make sure they don't host illegal content[1]).
So essentially I'm not allowed to download a movie, but I'm allowed to load it in my browser and watch it later.
However! If I copy the file from the browser's cache to another directory, then that's again illegal. I find this puzzling, but then again, I won't be the one who complains for having a loophole (or is it?) that allows me to download any movie without fear of retribution.
[1] https://torrentfreak.com/viewing-pirated-streams-is-not-ille...
So essentially I'm not allowed to download a movie, but I'm allowed to load it in my browser and watch it later.
However! If I copy the file from the browser's cache to another directory, then that's again illegal. I find this puzzling, but then again, I won't be the one who complains for having a loophole (or is it?) that allows me to download any movie without fear of retribution.
[1] https://torrentfreak.com/viewing-pirated-streams-is-not-ille...
The Netherlands up to now saw the issue the same as copying levy thus allowing his citizens to download movies, music and books from illegal sources.
To Clarify, banning illegal downloading sounds quite logical.
Until now, downloading of copyrighted material such as movies, tv shows and music was allowed for personal use. This apparently has been overruled by an EU court. Quite interested to see what this is going to change....
Until now, downloading of copyrighted material such as movies, tv shows and music was allowed for personal use. This apparently has been overruled by an EU court. Quite interested to see what this is going to change....
I think very little will change. A little background: The Netherlands has for a long time allowed for people to make a copy of media (video, music, but not software), for personal use. This included media you'd borrow from a library, for example, or even your neighbor. To compensate, carriers (optical media, flash memory and the like) are a bit more expensive because an additional fee (of several euros; height depends on the size of the medium more or less) is added to the price of said media.
Then, the internet came to be and suddenly you could make a copy easily, but the rules were left unaltered, but the compensation went up in price.
A very important detail of the fact that downloading for personal use (redistributing, e.g. uploading, has always been illegal) was allowed even if the source was "illegal" (e.g. torrents, usenet). The reason for that is that it can be hard to tell whether or not the source you download from is distributing legally or illegally. The above is now no longer OK, apparently, but if you borrow a CD from the library, you can still copy it for personal use just fine. We've kind of reverted to the situation we had before the internet was mainstream.
The reason I think nothing will change is that "distribution" (I use this term loosely to allow a torrent site, for example, to fall in this category for argument's sake) has always been a target, and individuals downloading for personal use never were. The organization tasked with dealing with copyright infringement has stated to keep its arrows pointed at the distributing side of all this, not the individual downloader.
I'd be very very surprised if it's going to be enforced in any way, due to being almost unenforceable.
The media industry STILL has to work on giving the consumer what they want, and seeing as how Netflix and Spotify are good examples of services that are now available here and seem to be doing pretty good, it might be okay.
A very important detail of the fact that downloading for personal use (redistributing, e.g. uploading, has always been illegal) was allowed even if the source was "illegal" (e.g. torrents, usenet). The reason for that is that it can be hard to tell whether or not the source you download from is distributing legally or illegally. The above is now no longer OK, apparently, but if you borrow a CD from the library, you can still copy it for personal use just fine. We've kind of reverted to the situation we had before the internet was mainstream.
The reason I think nothing will change is that "distribution" (I use this term loosely to allow a torrent site, for example, to fall in this category for argument's sake) has always been a target, and individuals downloading for personal use never were. The organization tasked with dealing with copyright infringement has stated to keep its arrows pointed at the distributing side of all this, not the individual downloader.
I'd be very very surprised if it's going to be enforced in any way, due to being almost unenforceable.
The media industry STILL has to work on giving the consumer what they want, and seeing as how Netflix and Spotify are good examples of services that are now available here and seem to be doing pretty good, it might be okay.
I'm pretty sure the 'home copy' law doesn't allow you to copy stuff from the library; these works still fall under copyright law, after all, and each of them has a big disclaimer in the front saying no part of it may be copied.
The 'home copy' law is so you can create copies for your own use of material you bought yourself, as long as you keep it to yourself - things like transferring a CD to your mp3 player.
Similarly, it is (was?) legal to download copyrighted material to your own computer for your own use, if you already owned the material.
There is/was another loophole in the copyright law, which states it's not allowed to distribute copyrighted material. However, this law doesn't state anything about receiving and using copyrighted material; it's the distributor / uploader that's responsible for that. And since, in the case of internet piracy, that uploader is often not under Dutch jurisdiction, it kinda falls on its face.
The 'home copy' law is so you can create copies for your own use of material you bought yourself, as long as you keep it to yourself - things like transferring a CD to your mp3 player.
Similarly, it is (was?) legal to download copyrighted material to your own computer for your own use, if you already owned the material.
There is/was another loophole in the copyright law, which states it's not allowed to distribute copyrighted material. However, this law doesn't state anything about receiving and using copyrighted material; it's the distributor / uploader that's responsible for that. And since, in the case of internet piracy, that uploader is often not under Dutch jurisdiction, it kinda falls on its face.
> I'm pretty sure the 'home copy' law doesn't allow you to copy stuff from the library
But it does. :)
It is explained here: http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/nl/thuiskopie/ but it is in Dutch. It states that: - You may make only a few copies but it's unspecified how many that is.
- The copy has to be for personal use
- You may make the copy for someone else, but this is not true for music
- You don't have to own the material you want to copy
- There are some exceptions, namely electronic databases (paper database are allowed), physical structures (no copying other buildings please!) and computer software
But it does. :)
It is explained here: http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/nl/thuiskopie/ but it is in Dutch. It states that: - You may make only a few copies but it's unspecified how many that is.
- The copy has to be for personal use
- You may make the copy for someone else, but this is not true for music
- You don't have to own the material you want to copy
- There are some exceptions, namely electronic databases (paper database are allowed), physical structures (no copying other buildings please!) and computer software
The problem with this interpretation is that in the vast majority of cases, one cannot know whether downloading is authorized or not.
Virtually every video, audio or text file of works created in the past century, more or less, is copyrighted. That alone is not the relevant criterion. The criterion of infringement is whether the particular action is authorized by the copyright holder. But this, no one can routinely know in the course of internet activities.
There is no central or public database of works that would reveal even who the copyright owner is - and even if there were, it would have to also record the authorization status of everyone in relation to every work.
So you are looking around online and someone is offering a file - if you are subject to lawsuits, fines or whatever other interference for downloading, then in principle it's not safe to even look at a web page. What the new rule amounts to in practice is something like "well if you infer that the web page is intended to be retrieved, you're probably safe, but you can be penalized for guessing incorrectly about music or videos". (Note that movie companies have actually sued youtube/Google over files including some that the movie companies themselves published on youtube.)
It simultaneously keeps everyone continually vulnerable to selective enforcement by private companies (specifically, big copyright accumulators), and casts a chilling effect on the relationship of fans with artists who would like to release works on more liberal terms than Hollywood companies (can you trust a statement on a web page that something is authorized???).
Virtually every video, audio or text file of works created in the past century, more or less, is copyrighted. That alone is not the relevant criterion. The criterion of infringement is whether the particular action is authorized by the copyright holder. But this, no one can routinely know in the course of internet activities.
There is no central or public database of works that would reveal even who the copyright owner is - and even if there were, it would have to also record the authorization status of everyone in relation to every work.
So you are looking around online and someone is offering a file - if you are subject to lawsuits, fines or whatever other interference for downloading, then in principle it's not safe to even look at a web page. What the new rule amounts to in practice is something like "well if you infer that the web page is intended to be retrieved, you're probably safe, but you can be penalized for guessing incorrectly about music or videos". (Note that movie companies have actually sued youtube/Google over files including some that the movie companies themselves published on youtube.)
It simultaneously keeps everyone continually vulnerable to selective enforcement by private companies (specifically, big copyright accumulators), and casts a chilling effect on the relationship of fans with artists who would like to release works on more liberal terms than Hollywood companies (can you trust a statement on a web page that something is authorized???).
Surely if it was legal to download copyrighted material before, for personal use, then it wasn't... illegal.
So what they've actually done is ban the downloading of copyrighted material, not ban the illegality of downloading copyright material since that's a double-negative.
So what they've actually done is ban the downloading of copyrighted material, not ban the illegality of downloading copyright material since that's a double-negative.
No, they banned the downloading of copyrighted material from illegal sources. You may still copy and/or download copyrighted material from legal sources for personal use.
The law hasn't changed. It's been clarified by the European court and the Dutch Government follows this interpretation as of now.
The law hasn't changed. It's been clarified by the European court and the Dutch Government follows this interpretation as of now.
That's what I was trying to say with 'sounds quite logical'
I'd imagine the companies providing seedboxes in the Netherlands may have a lot of work to do.
also usenet providers might be in the scope of BREIN[$] now..
[$]http://www.anti-piracy.nl/english.php
[$]http://www.anti-piracy.nl/english.php
Quite staggering how a non-elected instance can make major decisions for an entire country. Just like that.
Well, it can be quite the double edged sword. After all, the same non-elected instance has recently enforced net neutrality in the EU (and it certainly received a lot of praise for that). It has also recently introduced a ban on roaming charges on mobile networks abroad (but within the EU). In the case of the Netherlands, it has recently ruled a law, which forces providers to store metadata of their clients for 6 to 24 months, illegal, due to a violation of our privacy . These decisions are beneficial for EU citizens, consumers.
You gain some, you lose some. :)
You gain some, you lose some. :)
The problem is not that 'you gain some, you lose some'. The problem is that you lose some and then you lose some more.
When the EU declared the DRD no longer in force the Dutch national entities enforcing it immediately stepped up to make sure that it was made clear that nothing would change. And now that downloading from non-sanctioned sources is made illegal there will possibly be prosecution of individuals or renewed efforts to block certain websites. And on top of that all the copy levy will most likely continue to exist.
If there were any balance in this I'd be happy about it.
When the EU declared the DRD no longer in force the Dutch national entities enforcing it immediately stepped up to make sure that it was made clear that nothing would change. And now that downloading from non-sanctioned sources is made illegal there will possibly be prosecution of individuals or renewed efforts to block certain websites. And on top of that all the copy levy will most likely continue to exist.
If there were any balance in this I'd be happy about it.
Isn't that how courts work in most countries? Major decisions get passed down all the time by courts. Legislation thrown out, new legislation ordered. The only difference here is that it's a European court rather than a national court.
Here is the legal stuff [1]
[1] http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...
[1] http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...
The headline seems misleading, since this was a decision by the EU Court of Justice that said the Dutch would have to stop downloading. The Netherlands themselves didn't ban anything.
Not really that of a news. Wasn't Netherlands also one of the biggest NSA hotspots in all EU?
the AMSX trunks should be boxed yes.
If something is illegal, isn't it already banned?
Not necessarily. For example, in the Netherlands one cannot be punished for being illegal here[0].
Edit: added a link for clarity.
[0]: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/04/cabinet_drops_...
Edit: added a link for clarity.
[0]: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/04/cabinet_drops_...
> in the Netherlands one cannot be punished for being illegal here
This doesn't make sense as a sentence. Surely the Netherlands has a justice system and prisons, and surely those people in prison are there because they were convicted of doing something illegal. So it stands that you can and will be punished in the Netherlands for doing something illegal.
This doesn't make sense as a sentence. Surely the Netherlands has a justice system and prisons, and surely those people in prison are there because they were convicted of doing something illegal. So it stands that you can and will be punished in the Netherlands for doing something illegal.
I think what he meant was that you can't be punished for being an "illegal alien" in the Netherlands.
"Illegal residence is only punishable if the party involved has been declared 'undesirable'" (http://en.justitiaetpax.nl/project/aliens-detention-in-the-n...)
"Illegal residence is only punishable if the party involved has been declared 'undesirable'" (http://en.justitiaetpax.nl/project/aliens-detention-in-the-n...)
wsc981 made an unfortunate language error / directly translated a Dutch expression to english; 'being illegal' in his example translates to living in the Netherlands as an illegal immigrant, which, while 'illegal', is not actually enforced as a crime.
He means 'being illegaly there', i.e. being an illegal immigrant. This was part of a recent political debate; it was reconfirmed as not being punishable.
It would have affected mostly individuals that are also banned from entering their homeland, and are ping-ponged back to the Netherlands.
Yes. But not for being illegally there (here).
You wouldn't download a car.
Is this a late April 1 joke?