[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Some people seem to think that because everyone does it, it is unreasonable to crack down.

First: At this point in time, it is still legal in the Netherlands, to download media (movies, music, books, but not software) for your own use, even if the source is not legal. This is because we're allowed to make copies of media, for our own use, and downloading is, at this time, seen as making a copy, even if you do not own the original. It's the distribution (uploading) that is illegal. So, if you copy a music CD from your neighbor, you're not violating any laws, but your neighbor is.

Second: It isn't unreasonable to try to catch uploaders or illegal distributors, but the way BREIN is trying to do it is. They are trying to give themselves the right to obtain data at their own whim, data that they shouldn't be able to get without approval of a judge.

I can set up a foundataion called "Kat's Epic Foundation of Copyright Protection", and then writers or publishers can pay me to protect their copyright. This is what BREIN is. I can create my own "BREIN" within minutes, if I have at least one writer/publisher that is willing to fund me.

How is the copyright protection done? Like this: the foundation (BREIN, or mine) scours the internet, searching for the media owned by the artists or publishers that are part of the foundation. If they find any media of one of their connected publishers online, and they determine that it should not be there, a case needs to be made with a judge, stating that there are suspicions of illegal distribution. If the judge agrees, the foundation can ask for the permission to obtain personal data of the uploader so they can take him or her to court on behalf of the publisher.

What BREIN is doing now, is trying to skip the step of filing a case with a court and having to ask permission to obtain personal data. As BREIN is *NOT* a law enforcement organisation, this is (probably) not legal under current Dutch law.

A US paper book store with a big shoplifting problem likely keeps video of its patrons. When they notice shinkage, they use the video. When they don't, the video goes unused. I have no idea if storing bookstore customer video is consistent with due process of law in the Netherlands, but, if it is, this is no different.

You're correct, it's not different. However, in the Netherlands, there first has to be a suspicion of some criminal activity, before the video is watched. If the criminal activity is confirmed, a court will be asked to give permission to investigate and track the suspected persons.

It's not allowed for a shopkeeper (or foundation) to say: "Damn, I'm missing item X", and then to just start identifying people and gathering personal data at will. That is what BREIN is trying to do.

When you give them your credit card name and number, it should be pretty obvious that you are being recorded, but stating that fact may alienate customers.

Being recorded is not the problem. Stores are protected by video camera's, as you said. The problem is that a private organisation is trying to obtain the records without intervention of a judge. "Hey, we found some stuff online. All your data are belong to us. Give it here!" That's not allowed at this time.

Due process can't begin unless there is a way for authorities to collect evidence and find suspects.

Indeed, and that's the entire point: BREIN is not an authority. They are not a law enforcement organisation.

If they want to do anything, search a house for example, they'll have to go through the police and get a warrant (based on a plausible case), just as I would need to, if I suspect that you stole my laptop and I want your house searched.