Dutch Anti-Piracy Group May Face Legal Charges For Stealing Servers
from the if-you-haven't-paid-for-it,-it's-stealing dept
We’ve noted in the past how the very aggressive Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN seems to have a problem with stealing computers. The group, which is a private, industry-backed group, seems to fancy itself as some sort of law enforcement adjunct, despite the fact it has no actual legal authority. This has created problems in the past, when the courts have questioned why the police seemed to rely solely on BREIN’s questionably collected evidence, rather than doing their own investigation. And some lawsuits have even been dismissed for relying too much on BREIN’s highly questionable evidence.
So, by now, you would think that BREIN would be a bit more careful these days not to pretend it has more legal powers than it does. However, the group only seems to go further and further. Last week, it came out that BREIN was able to “seize” a group of servers from a small South African American ISP without any legal basis at all. It just convinced the data center, WorldStream, to simply hand them over. The ISP, Alejandra Transporte SA, who has nothing to do with the warez topsite that BREIN insisted were using those servers, was not at all happy and went to court to complain about the fact that a bunch of its servers had been stolen, causing massive damages to its business. The court granted the request to get the servers back from BREIN, but is quite worried that BREIN went through the private contents on some of the servers, completely in violation of privacy laws.
It seems this entire lack of any sort of due process and private industry groups stealing servers and domains with little basis is a growing trend. It sounds like Alejandra Transporte is considering taking further legal action against both BREIN and WorldStream. I’m curious if the usual defenders of seizures think that this particular seizure was warranted?
Filed Under: netherlands, seizures, servers
Companies: brein
Comments on “Dutch Anti-Piracy Group May Face Legal Charges For Stealing Servers”
It’s not stealing if there’s copyright infringement involved in some way.
/sarcasm
Re: Re:
Oh come on, we all know it’s perfectly legal to violate due process, privacy, and (real) property rights if you’re protecting government granted monopolies. That’s simple 101 IP law.
Re: Re:
let me rephrase this to the MPAA/RIAA way: It’s not stealing if we’re doing it. It’s stealing if we’re not doing it.
Re: Re:
Agent: You downloaded a movie Mr. Criminal, we have the right and duty to perform a cavity search and molest your hamster because you are a thief.
Re: Re: Re:
No, that’s the TSA.
You’ve been watching too many movies.
“…”seize” a group of servers from a small South African ISP”
Uhm, Mike? I think you meant South AMERICAN.
Re: Re:
Uhm, Mike? I think you meant South AMERICAN.
Oops. Fixed.
“seized” is such a wonderful term. If the ISP willingly handed them over, who’s fault is it?
Re: Re:
Exactly. Let’s review this issue next time a robber points a gun at your head and politely asks for your wallet.
Re: Re: Re:
haha. I am just picturing a bunch of jackbooted thugs in Brein Uniforms, armed with sub-machine guns, running around from data center to data center, smashing pirate rings.
You realize of course how stupid your comment sounds now, right?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AC misses point? Was it intentional? Never!
Not a literal robber, gun, person or wallet.
Robber: BREIN
Gun: Legal action
Person: ISP
Wallet: Servers
Fits pretty nicely, although would have been better if it was a fake gun (no actual legality to the threat/actions).
You intentionally don’t accept of course how stupid your comment sounds now, right?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
AC may not realize how ignorant their comment was.
Ya gotta realize–50% of the people you meet are of below average intellect.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Ignorant why? BRIEN sends them a notice that the content is infringing, asks them to turn over the servers, and the ISP decides to do so, likely after consulting their lawyers. I missed the gun part.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
BREIN are breaking the law in making such a request without a warrant.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
As a private group they can make any “request” they want and as they are a private group you can tell them where to stuff their request
“”seized” is such a wonderful term. If the ISP willingly handed them over, who’s fault is it?”
The ISP did not hand them over, the data center did.
Basically equivalent to me walking off the street to your bank and demanding the contents of your safety deposit box and bank handing them over
Could see two cases here, something akin to criminal theft by deception against BREIN and a civil suit against the data center
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
If you walked into my bank and asked for my money and they gave it to you, I’d go after the bank. If you walked away with that money, I’d go after you too. In this case, they have a case against both BREIN as well as the ISP. The ISP should not have handed over their servers, and BREIN should not have walked away with it. Once they walked away with the servers, they stole it. It doesn’t matter that the ISP willingly gave it, they still stole the servers. Robbery is not the only form of theft. They should also be charged with fraud.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Actually if you read the post, the ISP did not turn over the servers. The datacenter provider turned over the servers “for the ISP” without permission. That is more like someone pointing a gun at your neighbor and the neighbor giving your car keys to the theif.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
That is the problem. Brein didn’t do anything wrong, the datacenter made a choice and did so. If I walk up to you on the street and say “hey, can I have a smoke” and you give me on, did I steal it? What you willingly do of your own choice is never theft or “seizing” of anything.
I think Mike is once again using hyperbole and charged words to make this look like something it just isn’t. If anyone did something wrong, it’s the datacenter who handed out other people’s equipment without reason.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Nothing wrong!?
Brein knowingly took other people’s property.
Plus it violate the privacy of the ISP’s customers.
Both things are illegal in the Netherlands.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
If you park your fancy-expensive car at a valet…
I want your car so I create a official looking valet ticket and claim it.
The valet gets the car and I get in and drive away.
Who’s fault is it?
Sure the valet is at fault for being duped and so you go after them to get your money back. If the valet ticket is a good forgery then you probably can’t get them for negligence, but you may get a settlement out of it.
But the mastermind is still Me. I knowingly and actively committed a theft by taking a physical good that didn’t belong to me. I can get (in the US) sued for civil and arrested for criminal issues(if the Police decide to).
Am I off the hook if I claim that you were transporting something illegal in the car so I took it to investigate? If you are not the police I don’t think that would fly.
If I just took pictures of the car and returned it could i say I just borrowed it? Or would I get sued for copy write infringement? (ok a bit of snarkyness there)
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
That is the problem. Brein didn’t do anything wrong, the datacenter made a choice and did so. If I walk up to you on the street and say “hey, can I have a smoke” and you give me on, did I steal it? What you willingly do of your own choice is never theft or “seizing” of anything.
Um. But that’s not what happened. What happened here was Worldstream gave away *someone else’s servers* believing that BREIN had official authority to demand them.
Bumming a cig off someone is totally different.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Really? You really believe that or are you doing it just for an argument?
How about if I came up to you in a security guard uniform as you left a shop and convinced you to hand over your friend’s shopping “because they are under investigation for shoplifting”? You and your friend would have pretty good grounds to have me arrested when you found out I had no authority to act for the shop. But perhaps not since you gave me his shopping willingly, right?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
“If I walk up to you on the street and say “hey, can I have a smoke” and you give me one, did I steal it?”
Only if I didn’t own the cigarette in the first place.
What happened here was:
BREIN asked the datacenter for a cigarette, and the datacenter grabbed the cigarette the ISP had bought and was smoking and gave it to BREIN.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
> BREIN are breaking the law in making such
> a request without a warrant.
And more to the point, as a private non-law enforcement, non-government organization, they’re not entitled to any warrant. Ever. For any reason.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m sure you know, the suits can be just as intimidating, and only half as humane.
With all the fourth-, fifth-, sixth-, etc- party liability in copyright infringement litigation, it’s not hand to see how they were forced to hand over the servers “voluntarily”.
It’s not beneath a group like BREIN to sue a datacentre, that stored servers owned by a different company, that hosted the content of another company, that was uploaded by random internet users.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Again, something in this story has an odor to it. The ISP normally would have just disconnected the servers and called it a day. Did they hand them over with a court order? Did they get a lawyers letter and decide by themselves that handing over the servers would be their best way to avoid any legal involvement?
Further, you have to wonder: Why is a dutch anti-piracy group doing some sort of covert operations in South (whatever)? Are warez and copyright infringers so scared that they are down to trying to hide their servers in friendly countries to avoid legal action? Is that not the actions of guilty minded people?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Is that not the actions of guilty minded people?
Nope. It’s the actions of unduly persecuted people.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
to be fair, the two are often conflated by their opponents.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
It’s also the actions of people who live in South America, which strikes me as the simplest explanation.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Did they hand them over with a court order?”
Clearly, they didn’t.
“Did they get a lawyers letter and decide by themselves that handing over the servers would be their best way to avoid any legal involvement?”
Probably, but the servers weren’t their property to give away.
“Why is a dutch anti-piracy group doing some sort of covert operations in South (whatever)?”
Because it’s a foreign company operating in the Netherlands?
“Are warez and copyright infringers so scared that they are down to trying to hide their servers in friendly countries to avoid legal action? Is that not the actions of guilty minded people?”
I don’t think that’s what happened, but I wouldn’t hold it against them if they were afraid of BREIN and its illegal kamikaze tactics.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
> Again, something in this story has an odor to it.
Which is what you always say when the behavior by Big Content is so egregious even you can’t think of a way to reasonably defend it.
You just claim there’s “something more here we’re not being told”. You never have any evidence of that, of course, just some vague and nebulous assertion that there’s some unidentified bit of information that is not being provided.
Your schtick is so old in this regard, that *it’s* likely the source of that mysterious odor you’re smelling.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Which is what you always say when the behavior by Big Content is so egregious even you can’t think of a way to reasonably defend it.
No, I think that plenty of people here have spotted the problem and refuse to look at it: The datacenter did something wrong. Brein can ask all it wants for X or Y or Z to happen, but that doesn’t make it happen. Their requests (because they aren’t court ordered) are just requests. The datacenter made the mistake, and normally should be liable.
Of course, when it comes out that the servers are packed full of stolen content, you won’t care – it isn’t relevant, right?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“Of course, when it comes out that the servers are packed full of stolen content, you won’t care – it isn’t relevant, right?”
Considering how they were obtained, seems there might be a problem getting them admitted as evidence since the chain of custody doesn’t seem to include law enforcement anywhere.
BREIN is in possession of those servers with no oversight.
Bye bye servers as evidence.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
> Brein can ask all it wants for X or Y
> or Z to happen
As a general statement, that’s false. Even merely asking for something to which one is not entitled can be illegal, if it’s done with deception, disguise, impersonation or threat.
> Of course, when it comes out that the servers
> are packed full of stolen content, you won’t
> care – it isn’t relevant, right?
No, it’s actually not relevant. What the servers do or do not contain is completely irrelevant to whether BREIN was entitled to take posession of them or the methods they used to do so.
It’s the same principle which applies to the police and search warrants. It’s no defense to an illegal, warrantless search to say, “But your honor, the house was packed with illegal stuff. We found the murder weapon and two keys of heroin.” The judge would rightly respond that what the house contained was wholly irrelevant as to whether the search was legal in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“Brein can ask all it wants for X or Y or Z to happen, but that doesn’t make it happen.”
Willful possession of stolen property is often regarded a crime, isn’t it?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
But even then there is due process by a LEGAL authority to convict the person of possession.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Indeed, the server owners went through the legal system to get their servers back, and now they can sue BREIN properly for a bunch of different reasons.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
> Is that not the actions of guilty minded people?
Not if it isn’t a crime in those countries. If an American goes to Amsterdam on vacation and smokes pot, they are not “guilty minded” because they’re doing someting which is illegal back in Nebraska or wherever. They’re doing something which is perfectly legal in the jurisdiction in which they are currently located.
Or a corporation decided to base its business in Delaware because the taxes aren’t nearly as high as in California. Are they “guilty-minded” for choosing a legal climate that maximizes their business potential?
No. Nothing guilty about it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Is that not the actions of guilty minded people?
Like those guilty minded filmmakers who set up in Hollywood to escape Edison’s patents.
Re: Re:
Do you prefer the term “defrauded” then? “Conned out of” perhaps? That’s what it amounts to if there is no legal right to take them – Alejandra Transporte were the victim of a confidence scam. Presumably that’s why “seize” is indeed in quote marks in the article.
Re: Re: Re:
The original comment wasn’t even correct in its assertion. The ISP had servers that it had the legal rights to use taken away from them.
This involves a number of legal issues, such as breaking and contract and unlawful seizure. Just asking someone to give you something isn’t legal, you need either a court order or a contract to do it legally, especially when it involves corporations.
Theft
Theft is small potatoes. The IP supporters are arguing that more police resources be devoted to IP “crimes” at the expense of violent crimes such as murder, assault and rape.
Re: Theft
so that is why when my car got stolen they wouldn’t send out an officer to investigate until after I submitted a report online.
Re: Re: Theft
Nope. The reason they don’t send an officer out until you file your online report is that many people either aren’t able to or are unwilling to submit the online report or they decide that the damages aren’t worth the time and effort since they are unlikely to ever have their losses recovered.
This happened to me when someone tried to steal my vehicle last summer. They were unsuccessful thankfully but I seriously doubted I would have ever recovered anything to cover the damage so I chose not to file a report. that incident will not appear in any crime statistic anywhere because a far as anyone knows – it simply never happened.
If you follow the local political scene in any city that uses the online system you will find that “crime is way down” statistically. This pseudo “dropping” of the crime rate allows the local governments to justify cutting the funding for the regional law enforcement budget because obviously with the decrease in crime, fewer officers are needed!
The “Judge Dumps Yet Another Mass Infringement Suit In Response To Single, Pro Se Motion To Quash” article on the home page is yielding a 404.
However the article links fine from the gadget.
DEATH TO ALL WHO OPPOSE US! [/Belf]
Seized
“”seized” is such a wonderful term. If the ISP willingly handed them over, who’s fault is it?”
It all depends on how BREIN portrayed itself. If it represented itself as law enforcement and obtained the servers through pretenses of fraud and impresonation of an officer (these are US charges, I don’t know if the host country has similiar charges)…. then the fault is mostly BREIN’s.
The other angle may have been nothing more than a mafia enforcer shakedown… give us your servers… or else… with unveiled legal battle threats left on the table.
Still, the ISP should have investigated the matter thoroughly before handing over sensitive user information and showed just a little more balls before betraying the users that pay them.
Why no warrent?
Why was there no warrant issued for the arrest of those that stole property? BRIEN obviously told WorldStream they had the legal right to those servers which unless I am mistaken is theft via misrepresentation. I am no lawyer but I am always curious why more business related crime does not result in people be arrested.
Re: Why no warrent?
business-related crime
There’s your problem!
Re: Re: Why no warrent?
“Business-Related crime” I have a copy write and a patent on that!
Pay up or I will size your servers!
Re: Re: Re: Why no warrent?
Ah, good that you didn’t have a copyright on that… otherwise The eejit would’ve been in trouble.
Lawyers? I'd hire new ones.
I’m not defending BREIN but I mean, I have to kind of shake my head at the ISP. Why on Earth would you hand over servers without fully being sure this is a legally backed request?
BREIN is in the wrong for this vigilante act but at the same time it’s also this ISP’s fault for just complying.
Re: Lawyers? I'd hire new ones.
Hint:
“BREIN boss Tim Kuik admitted that his organization had somehow acquired the Swan servers from hosting provider WorldStream, who in turn weren?t in a position to simply give other people?s equipment to a third party.”
Never knew that Costa Rica was part of South Africa. 🙂
Also, there have been a few analysis in the Netherlands about the whole case and for some strange reason, Alejandra Transporte SA cannot be found on the Internet. Not as a web hosting company, anyways. Some people in the Netherlands thus think this is just some delay tactics by some hacker who knows that Brein now holds a lot of sensitive information about him, enough to be arrested and to receive a bill for an amount that cannot be pronounced, so big will it be! So, some delay tactics will allow him to clean up after himself, get a new identity, recover from plastic surgery and then to go deep in hiding…
Very, very deep…
It’s also concluded that while it’s not theft, it’s inappropriate how Brein managed to get those servers. They will probably be fined for this but they end up being able to use any evidence found on those servers against it’s owners. And that will hurt it’s owners a lot!
Re: Re:
I can’t see how they can use anything in a court of law any “evidence” becomes null and void as they cannot prove that it was obtained legally, as they aren’t part of any legal or law enforcement agency.
Personally I hope BREIN and Tim get a day in court just to remind them once and for all that they are nothing more than bought and paid for thugs.
In the US, the penalty is pretty heavy for impersonating law enforcement. Penalties for theft by deception too. I imagine most countries would also have laws like that on the books.
BREIN is not law enforcement, but it seems like they presented themselves as such and perpetrated a bit of real, actual, tangible theft.
Their domain should be seized as an instrument of criminal enterprise.
Re: Re:
> The [BREIN] domain should be seized as an
> instrument of criminal enterprise.
Heh. Wouldn’t *that* be funny.
“I’m curious if the usual defenders of seizures think that this particular seizure was warranted?”
I assume you are talking about the domain seizures. You are comparing apples to oranges. This is a private group. The domain seizures are done by an arm of our government put in place by people that you voted for. If you don’t like it, vote for someone else or run for office yourself.
Re: Re:
Or just continue to commit acts of blatant civil disobedience, on a mass scale, until something breaks. Hey, it’s not like the political process has ever been accused of corruption!
OK, everyone, let’s do the same here. We can meet over at the RIAA headquarters. Dress code is suits, white shirts, black tie and sunglasses. I’ll be Agent Johnson. Bring plastic sheriff badges. We go in and inform them that unless they hand over all their paperwork, they will be arrested for fraud and anti-trust violations. If they refuse, we’ll inform them that their domains are being seized for distributing music.
mmm why are the Dutch doing the work in a foreign country I assume here the RIAA andMPAA have something to do with it in which case as stated earlier IT NOT IN AMERICA SO second word off.
Here is an important fact many of you have overlooked.
WorldStream = Datacenter
Alejandra Transporte = ISP
The datacenter handed over the servers not the ISP.
Remember this is BREIN who somehow have been handed evidence in cases directly from the authorities (not copies but the actual items with no oversight). Who admitted publicly that a laptop seized in of of their directed raids was now their property.
They keep loosing cases because of stupid missteps of what they want the law to be rather than what it is.
And given the enormous funding and backing paying political leaders to give up peoples rights to keep corporations “protected” I am surprised that there are not more of these groups.
Because it is totally right to break the law to try and prove others might have broken the law. And we can prove they broke the law because we uploaded the criminal material ourselves!
Huh… I wonder if ICE is now just a division of BREIN.
You wouldn’t steal a server.
The RIAA and the MPAA are just a bunch of pirates. BREIN is working hard in order to take down those file sharers exposing themselves to legal prosecution and the RIAA and the MPAA just steal the benefits of lesser file sharing. They should be ashamed of themselves! ICE should seize the assets of those pirate organizations in order to protect the business model of BREIN and other such hard working Americans. (Or Dutch… Who cares?)
I find it ironic that people have the audacity to complain about THEIR rights being violated when the reason they are under attack is because they are violating someone else’s rights in the first place.
Good for BREIN, I say.
The head of BREIN also famously bought a confiscated laptop of a hacker from the police.
Technically, the police had no business selling is, so the head of BREIN (Tim Kuijk) essentially stole the laptop from this hacker.