P.B. ip's assigned to prosecutors

[hrmwrm]

Pirate Bay IP Addresses Assigned to Prosecution Lawyers
Written by Ernesto on April 26, 2009
The Pirate Bay recently got a new range of IPs and to everyone’s surprise they are now linked to several movie and music industry lawyers involved in the TPB trial. According to the Pirate Bay’s Wikipedia entry the change was due to a hostile takeover, but most people know better.

RIPE is the Internet registry that keeps track of all IP-addresses allocated in Europe. When the Pirate Bay got a new range of IP-addresses this week, something odd happened. Aside from the usual TPB ASCII art there was some unusual information added to the RIPE database.

According to the recently updated RIPE database entry, the Pirate Bay is now listed as a customer of Danowsky & Partner law firm (who represented IFPI), Maqs Law Firm (representing the MPAA) and the Swedish anti-piracy bureau. All three were involved in the recent trial, which led some to believe that they somehow gained control over the site. This is nonsense of course.

So why is this info in there, some might wonder. One explanation might be that during the Pirate Bay trial the prosecution used (incorrect) data from the RIPE database claiming that this was the absolute truth. The Pirate Bay team probably put the lawyers’ info in there themselves to show that this is not the case. Indeed, there is no doubt that they will have a hard time selling this ‘truth’ to the public now, with their own names being featured in the recent entry.

TPB RIPE WHOIS


One of the other advantages of the new RIPE WHOIS is that the Pirate Bay team doesn’t have to deal with any of the takedown requests anymore, as it states that all abuse email should be directed to the earlier mentioned law firms. Aye, that will teach those landlubbers.

 

[hrmwrm]

and on the same note, swedens internet providers are proving tough for new legislation. if only american companies cared about privacy more.




Swedish ISPs Obstruct New Anti-Piracy Legislation
Written by Ernesto on April 27, 2009
While all eyes were on the Pirate Bay trial, Swedish parliament passed the IPRED law, making it easier for copyright holders to go after illicit file-sharers . The law has only been in effect for one month and anti-piracy outfits are already facing problems using it, as ISPs take measures to protect their customers.

The controversial Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) has gathered opposition from various sides, most notably half of the Swedish public. The law, which gives rights holders the authority to request the personal details of alleged copyright infringers, has also been met with resistance from ISPs.

As early as November, an op-ed was written by ISP Bahnhof’s CEO Jon Karlung where he stated his company would not hand over the information. “In its current version, the law makes no difference between computers and users. And meanwhile, it makes spies out of the ISPs,” he wrote at the time.

In a recent interview with Swedish national radio he reiterated this position and said ISPs are not legally bound to store information related to their customers’ IP-addresses. Hence, Bahnhof stopped storing user data and has no information to hand over, even if a court orders it. And Bahnhof isn’t on its own in taking this action.

Today, major operator Tele2 (over 600,000 customers) declared they will follow Bahnhof’s example and without delay stop storing this type of user data. “Previously, we have stored some information about our customer’s IP addresses for internal use, but now the privacy issue has been pushed this far with the IPRED discussion. We do this to strengthen our customers’ privacy,” said Tele2’s Swedish CEO Niclas
Palmstierna.

“There’s is nothing in the Electronic Communications Law that decides what we should store, only what we shouldn’t store. We have analyzed the legislation carefully and found that we have no obligations at all to store information about our customers’ IP addresses,” he continued.

Peter Danowsky, IFPI lawyer and legal representative in the first IPRED case, is not impressed with the ISPs opposition, and claims he can change the law. “Everyone in the parliament has been operating under the assumption that the ISPs are loyal to the legislation and don’t want to participate in breaking the law. If Tele2 takes this attitude and other operators follow, there will be a stronger law in the future,” he stated.

As if Danowsky’s self-proclaimed parliamentary status didn’t take enough time, he’s also having difficulties getting information about the ‘owner’ of an IP address in the first IPRED case.

Acting on a mission from five book publishers, Danowsky handed a request to a local court for information about the owner of an FTP-server where audio books were stored. Although it was a private FTP and the audio books couldn’t have been made available to the public, the court ordered the ISP Ephone to hand over the information of the person behind the IP-address. But Ephone refused.

“The evidence that the publishers have submitted is incomplete,” wrote Ephone’s lawyer in a response to the court. It mainly consisted of screenshots and log files, which Ephone says isn’t enough. Furthermore, they claim that releasing the information is contrary to the basic right for protection of an individual’s privacy. “For us, the level of evidence to disclose information on an IP-address must be very high,” said CEO Bo Wigstrande.

It’s good to see that ISPs are willing to stand up for the privacy their customers. In this they are backed by the European Parliament that spoke out in favor of amendment 138/46 of the Telecoms Package several times, stating that the right to privacy of Internet users may not be restricted without prior ruling by the judicial authorities.

 

[cammerfe]

"Is God willing...."; "Religion is....";
Modern idiots quoting ancient idiots!
KS

 

[hrmwrm]

"Is God willing...."; "Religion is....";
Modern idiots quoting ancient idiots!
KS

proving you're an a$$hole?

 

[Calabrio]

proving you're an a$$hole?

No, I think he's arguing that you're the arsehole for deliberately putting things that don't merely provoke, but aggressively insult, some members of our community here, in both your signature and in your avatar.

That level of aggressiveness is usually a sign of extreme insecurity.

 

[JWerner2]

No, I think he's arguing that you're the arsehole for deliberately putting things that are don't merely provoke, but aggressively insult, some members of our community here, in both your signature and in your avatar.

That level of aggressiveness is usually a sign of extreme insecurity.

So its ok for one side of the stick but not the other right?


I dont see any level of aggression what so ever. With is signature or his avatar. Also it shows no level of insecurity for one to take offense to his signature then turn a thread off topic and leave a smart remark rather then brushing it off cause its his personal beliefs?


On topic of PB:

I use torrents. I started to use them for stuff outside of copyright and stuff that is legal and has no copyright. Eventually you start to wonder what its like to venture to the other side and it can become a habit.

I feel that if you are not putting it to disc and selling it or giving it away its no different from borrowing it from the library or a friend.

 

[Calabrio]

So its ok for one side of the stick but not the other right?

Which side of the stick has something have sex with a "jesus fish?" Is that to encourage discussion?

Which side of the stick has questionable quotes that are intended to attribute religious faith with ignorance or sheep like behavior?

And when you find that stick, let me know, and if appropriate, I'll give you my opinion of it too.

I dont see any level of aggression what so ever. With is signature or his avatar.

Well, then I guess we see things differently.

Also it shows no level of insecurity for one to take offense to his signature then turn a thread off topic and leave a smart remark rather then brushing it off cause its his personal beliefs?

I'm not certain what you're trying to say here, but I think I agree.
I don't think this was the ideal time for Cammerfe to make mention of the insulting signature, but- when you make that your signature, you're kind of leaving it out there as a perennial subject of discussion.

On topic of PB:
I use torrents. I started to use them for stuff outside of copyright and stuff that is legal and has no copyright. Eventually you start to wonder what its like to venture to the other side and it can become a habit.

I feel that if you are not putting it to disc and selling it or giving it away its no different from borrowing it from the library or a friend.

It is so easy to do, it does become habit forming.
But it's intellectual theft, and there's no honest way around that conclusion.

 

[ground_zero298]

People create hacks to save us poor people money. I don't use pirate for music. But I see those people on cribs, talkin about I can't feed my kids because of pirated music as they stand next to their $300000 cars in their 5 million dollar driveway. They want me to pay 20 bucks for a cd? When they can only produce 1 good song? :q:q:q:qem. I limewire it all. I won't even watch sports anymore because of all the overpaid cry babies.

And as far as his sig, its just a sig. His personal opinion. People's views are peoples views. I try to live my life by my standards and not let what others think get me upset. But I can see how people would take it as he's trolling.