Dutch Court Orders ISP To Block 'Anna's Archive' and 'LibGen' (torrentfreak.com) 26
The Dutch pirate site blocklist has expanded with two new targets, shadow libraries Anna's Archive and Library Genesis. The court order was obtained by local anti-piracy group BREIN, acting on behalf of major publishers. Interestingly, Z-Library isn't listed in the blocking order, despite explicit warnings previously issued by BREIN. TorrentFreak reports: All blocking requests were submitted by local anti-piracy group BREIN, which acts on behalf of rightsholders. These include the major Hollywood studios but BREIN's purview is much broader. Last week, it obtained the latest blocking order, this time on behalf of the publishing industry. Issued by the Rotterdam District Court, the order requires a local Internet provider to block two well-known shadow libraries; "Anna's Archive" and "Library Genesis" (LibGen). News of this new court order was shared by BREIN which notes that both sites were found to make copyright infringing works available on a large scale. At the time of writing, a published copy is not available but, based on the covenant, all large Internet providers are expected to implement the blockades. "These types of illegal shadow libraries are very harmful. The only ones who benefit are the anonymous owners of these illegal services. Authors and publishers see no return on their efforts and investments," BREIN comments. "Copyright holders deserve an honest living. There are numerous legal ways to obtain ebooks. If desired, this can also be done very cheaply; through the library for example."
The Rotterdam court issued a so-called 'dynamic' blocking order, meaning that rightsholders can update the targeted domains and IP addresses if the sites switch to new ones in the future. This also applies to mirrors and increases the blockades' effectiveness, as there is no need to return to court. Previously, Internet provider KPN challenged these 'dynamic' orders, suggesting that they are too broad. The court rejected this argument, however, noting that the process hasn't led to any major problems thus far. BREIN further reports that Google is voluntarily offering a helping hand. As reported in detail previously, the search engine removes blocked domains from its local search results after being notified about an ISP blocking order. "The effectiveness of the blocking measure is increased because Google cooperates in combating these infringements and, at the request of BREIN, completely removes all references to websites that are blocked by order of the Dutch court from the search results," BREIN writes.
The Rotterdam court issued a so-called 'dynamic' blocking order, meaning that rightsholders can update the targeted domains and IP addresses if the sites switch to new ones in the future. This also applies to mirrors and increases the blockades' effectiveness, as there is no need to return to court. Previously, Internet provider KPN challenged these 'dynamic' orders, suggesting that they are too broad. The court rejected this argument, however, noting that the process hasn't led to any major problems thus far. BREIN further reports that Google is voluntarily offering a helping hand. As reported in detail previously, the search engine removes blocked domains from its local search results after being notified about an ISP blocking order. "The effectiveness of the blocking measure is increased because Google cooperates in combating these infringements and, at the request of BREIN, completely removes all references to websites that are blocked by order of the Dutch court from the search results," BREIN writes.
Have fun, good luck. (Score:4, Insightful)
the order requires a local Internet provider to block two well-known shadow libraries...As reported in detail previously, the search engine removes blocked domains from its local search results after being notified about an ISP blocking order.
That is what VPNs and proxies are for. "Local" is a fungible thing.
Can someone sue for lying in releases like this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know in Germany companies can sue users for reviews, who must be able to prove what they said happened (rather than the company needing to prove it didn't). Is there a law that would punish organizations for outright lying in press releases?
""These types of illegal shadow libraries are very harmful. The only ones who benefit are the anonymous owners of these illegal services. ..."
No, the readers benefit from the service, obviously. And "harmful" could be argued against... Is it causing harm to prevent a sale that would never have happened?
And I'll bet the owners of the services lose slightly (hosting costs). I'm not aware of any monetary gains that would go to the hosts of the information. Even if they put ads up, which seems stupid to try... Many people use ad blockers today.
We should just go UBI and stop pretending all this work is worth what people can force others to charge. Or that the work is even generally useful (versus a cost that capitalism causes... like tax preparation companies versus the government sending us a bill).
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult to imagine the adware that infested The Pirate Bay some months ago, isn't making money for someone.
absolute waste of time (Score:2)
Fucking idiot lawyers still have not heard of VPN's. And Europe is COVERED in them.
Nord, Mullvad, Proton, are just a few that come to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want them to succeed?
Re: (Score:2)
And there's fucking idiots who tell bullies to be better thugs.
Dutch pirate site blocklist (Score:4, Funny)
This Dutch pirate site blocklist seems to list some interesting websites.
I need to get a copy of it.
Re:Dutch pirate site blocklist (Score:4, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright holders deserve an honest living.
I agree. Assuming the copyright holder actually did work related to the copyright. Once a copyright is transferred, and assuming the new owner hasn't added or otherwise done anything to the work, they don't deserve shit. Copyrights also shouldn't exist for as long as they do. People or companies that horde copyrights to simply try and profit from having them can eat shit and die.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. It's overly complicated and not for any great reasons. And I think 70 years after the authors death is excessive.
Re: (Score:2)
Once a copyright is transferred, and assuming the new owner hasn't added or otherwise done anything to the work, they don't deserve shit.
That seems strange to me, because of the equivalence between different kinds of payments. (At the end of the day, every kind of income stream is traded and sold.)
Let's say my family can't handle ups and downs so I contract to receive a constant monthly payment in exchange for giving all my royalties each month to a company. Should this mean it's okay to pirate the work?
Let's say I have a financial emergency so I contract to receive a lump sum in exchange for giving all my royalties each month to a company.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, beyond the fact that I say that it's always ok to pirate first and, if enjoyed, pay what you can when you can. Pirating to me is no different than going to the local library to check out the same material physically. Either way, that person has absolutely no intention (or perhaps ability) of paying upfront for the product. However, just as with going to the library, pirating may lead to me buying future works from that person because I liked it that much.
So, yeah.
Re: (Score:3)
You didn't reply to my point at all, but I realize I may not have been clear about a crucial implication. You said creators deserve to be supported (in particular, before they transfer their work). But they also can't sell/lease/trade their work unless the buyer is treated the same as the creator, because the sale value would be zero. It seems like you aren't engaging with my argument directly because you think the creator should be supported, the creator should be able to sell the work, yet the companies t
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't reply to my point at all, but I realize I may not have been clear about a crucial implication.
Hmm, I did. Sort of. Though I did ignore all your specific scenarios.
because the sale value would be zero.
Only if everyone is getting it for free which is never going to happen. So, you can feel free to transfer your copyrights as much as you like. I am free to say fuck the new holder. While I understand the importance the system is needed to play, it is an overcomplicated, broken, and garbage system the way it is now.
Most of that research was done with public money (Score:5, Insightful)
Streisand effect (Score:2)
I had never heard of these before reading this slashdot article.
Interesting (Score:2)