BREIN-Netherlands Organization Going After P2P Users

[RidersoftheStorm 20]

https://torrentfreak.com/brein-threatens-pirates-with-high-fines-warns-vpn-users-160314/

 

Tribler.org, an experimental, P2P client closed shop, maybe.

 

The client is still working online but a notice on Github claimed Tribler is shutting down.

 

I hope they are reorganizing.

 

 

[LZ1 672]

Hello !

 

They are good-for-nothing oppressors of the internet and as with tyrants, they get the big middle-finger.

I still don't understand why they would punish VPN users harder. Perhaps to make up for the additional resources

used in order to even catch one?

 

Their statements are funny:

Also, BREIN notes that its enforcement actions are not limited to a specific content category. Those who share films, TV-series, music, books and games are all at risk, Kuik warns.

- I'd like to see them defend the rights of anime producers lol or super old games. It's all a sham. Many of these things just aren't available anymore by normal channels.

- Sharing is caring. This is tyranny. If I have an old game or such and I lend it to you and my other friends, that's not illegal. But for the digital equivalent then it's suddenly different.

 

“VPN services can see what you do, you run a security risk and it is possible that you can still be identified, which will result in a higher ‘fine’,” Kuik says.

 

- VPNs like AirVPN are logless and unlike many other VPNs, make an effort to not see what you do, as per my understanding.

- You run a greater security risk of not using a VPN lol. Especially while torrenting.

- Yes it's possible to be identified, but a lot of that just comes from misconfirguration, such as not turning off WebRTC or otherwise leaking.

- VPNs like Air also allow P2P and turn down DMCA requests. So they can, as Michael Jackson once suggested, "Beat It".

 

Then they say:

According to BREIN, VPN users should consider paying for legal content, instead of paying for anonymous access to illegal content, so that creators get properly compensated.

 

´- Why should someone pay for inferior services, which is often the case? Many Europeans for instance, pay for a Netflix with less content, yet higher prices.

- Lots of content isn't even available and not all torrenting is about movies either. There's many torrents on old games, software and books; especially from Asia.

- The creators, if by that they mean artists, probably don't take much of a hit anyway and companies like BREIN probably don't give the artists/actors the money either.

[zhang888 1066]

BREIN was active and known for years.

Actually adversaries like that is what made the VPN services not only for the average privacy freaks,

but for all the people who just understand the way the internet works during the past years.

 

Netherlands received very bad "pirate score" over the last few years, and since they apparently didn't want

to become the new "Sweden" of Pirate hosting, they made these semi-legal law enforcing groups to make

it look as something is done. This is fine, as long as they don't target the business ISPs as well.

 

Sidenote:

You have nothing to worry about while using the Dutch (NL) Air servers. As far as the current law takes place,

they have no jurisdiction in data-centers, unless Pirate content is hosted on these servers directly, which is not

the case here. Air acts only as a data transit service. Unless something significant will change in the future.

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

If I have an old game or such and I lend it to you and my other friends, that's not illegal. But for the digital equivalent then it's suddenly different.

 

There's a misconception in this sentence. If you give me your copy of a game, I can use it while you can't; when I own your copy, you obviously don't possess it to use it.

If you give it to me via the digital equivalent of today, you're giving me a copy of it. A copy you should have compensated the creators for. Unless you've got a file sharing client explicitly moving it from your computer which seldomly happened in the past since downloading something from a server is copying it on the server.

 

“VPN services can see what you do, you run a security risk and it is possible that you can still be identified, which will result in a higher ‘fine’,” Kuik says.

 

Desperate try to panic people, lol.

 

According to BREIN, VPN users should consider paying for legal content, instead of paying for anonymous access to illegal content, so that creators get properly compensated.

Agreed. Look out for legal alternatives wherever you can. But:

 

´- Why should someone pay for inferior services, which is often the case? Many Europeans for instance, pay for a Netflix with less content, yet higher prices.

 

Also agreed. Most services are inferior, especially movie streaming sites of today. It doesn't apply to music, though, since Spotify, Tidal and others fill the gap in a superior way.

 

The creators, if by that they mean artists, probably don't take much of a hit anyway and companies like BREIN probably don't give the artists/actors the money either.

 

You can't know; assuming BREIN is lying doesn't mean they lie.

[Guest]

Hello !

 

They are good-for-nothing oppressors of the internet and as with tyrants, they get the big middle-finger.

I still don't understand why they would punish VPN users harder. Perhaps to make up for the additional resources

used in order to even catch one?

 

Their statements are funny:

- I'd like to see them defend the rights of anime producers lol or super old games. It's all a sham. Many of these things just aren't available anymore by normal channels.

Also, BREIN notes that its enforcement actions are not limited to a specific content category. Those who share films, TV-series, music, books and games are all at risk, Kuik warns.

- Sharing is caring. This is tyranny. If I have an old game or such and I lend it to you and my other friends, that's not illegal. But for the digital equivalent then it's suddenly different.

 

“VPN services can see what you do, you run a security risk and it is possible that you can still be identified, which will result in a higher ‘fine’,” Kuik says.

 

- VPNs like AirVPN are logless and unlike many other VPNs, make an effort to not see what you do, as per my understanding.

- You run a greater security risk of not using a VPN lol. Especially while torrenting.

- Yes it's possible to be identified, but a lot of that just comes from misconfirguration, such as not turning off WebRTC or otherwise leaking.

- VPNs like Air also allow P2P and turn down DMCA requests. So they can, as Michael Jackson once suggested, "Beat It".

 

Then they say:

>

According to BREIN, VPN users should consider paying for legal content, instead of paying for anonymous access to illegal content, so that creators get properly compensated.

 

´- Why should someone pay for inferior services, which is often the case? Many Europeans for instance, pay for a Netflix with less content, yet higher prices.

- Lots of content isn't even available and not all torrenting is about movies either. There's many torrents on old games, software and books; especially from Asia.

- The creators, if by that they mean artists, probably don't take much of a hit anyway and companies like BREIN probably don't give the artists/actors the money either.

 

Pretty much, some VPN services do log and AirVPN is one of those companies who does everything to prevent it. And sure I personally wouldn't mind paying "legal" ways to watch content but take netflix for example they are behind and if it's NOT in the US you get VERY little content and they now block try to block VPNs yet you are still charged the same price as the Americans, ain't happening. I could pay for TV but I'd get shit filled tv with ads and behind by seasons of tv shows and I'd need to be there when the channels wanna show it, I can't do that.

[LZ1 672]

 

If I have an old game or such and I lend it to you and my other friends, that's not illegal. But for the digital equivalent then it's suddenly different.

 

There's a misconception in this sentence. If you give me your copy of a game, I can use it while you can't; when I own your copy, you obviously don't possess it to use it.

If you give it to me via the digital equivalent of today, you're giving me a copy of it. A copy you should have compensated the creators for. Unless you've got a file sharing client explicitly moving it from your computer which seldomly happened in the past since downloading something from a server is copying it on the server.

 

>“VPN services can see what you do, you run a security risk and it is possible that you can still be identified, which will result in a higher ‘fine’,” Kuik says.

 

Desperate try to panic people, lol.

 

According to BREIN, VPN users should consider paying for legal content, instead of paying for anonymous access to illegal content, so that creators get properly compensated.

Agreed. Look out for legal alternatives wherever you can. But:

 

´- Why should someone pay for inferior services, which is often the case? Many Europeans for instance, pay for a Netflix with less content, yet higher prices.

 

Also agreed. Most services are inferior, especially movie streaming sites of today. It doesn't apply to music, though, since Spotify, Tidal and others fill the gap in a superior way.

 

The creators, if by that they mean artists, probably don't take much of a hit anyway and companies like BREIN probably don't give the artists/actors the money either.

 

You can't know; assuming BREIN is lying doesn't mean they lie.

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming you even get any service at all, I should add. Many things are so old that no one sells them after all.

 

I like to assume BREIN lies, as they are, per my view, one of the many dishonest anti-pirate organisations. If the erosion of the freedom online is their

calling card, as it is with other groups like the MPAA and RIAA, I don't consider it above them to also lie, haha.