Talk:BREIN

Something to add to the criticism was the case where they ran an advertisement which included copyrighted material which was neither payed for nor requested permission to use.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/17275016947/anti-piracy-group-caught-pirating-song-anti-piracy-ad-corruption-scandal-erupts-response.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dummyaccountsarefun (talk • contribs) 13:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit dismayed by the fact that the entire "criticism" section is based on quotes from people that were involved. Especially the 2nd and 3rd item are basically Peter Sunde stating that evidence against Peter Sunde was falsified. If there are no other quotes claiming, or even proving, this then I think the entire reference should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croga (talk • contribs) 10:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Should contributions here always ne anti BREIN or is it also allowed to add some objective information? My contribution is in my opinion essential and absolutely true. I added citations, so everything I wrote can be verified. Nevertheless it is removed because it would not be 'constructive'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breintrein (talk • contribs) 08:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is allowed to add objective information and that is the core of wikipedia! However, it is not allowed to copy content directly from the internet. You copied content which is from the website of brein (from here), which is not allowed. But I agree that some things can be worded more neutrally (and more extensively), so feel free to do so while providing references (preferably not from brein.nl itself, which probably --as every organization- has a non-neutral point of view regarding its own organization)! L.tak (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I only copied a few sentences about BREIN's acitvities in general form the website of BREIN. I was unaware that that is a violation of the Wikipedia rules. My appologies. The rest of what I wrote I certainly did not copy. It contains absolutely relavant and objective information, but it was also removed. On th other hand the relevance of the sentence which was restored is absolutlely unclear. Can anyone explain to me why this is rrelevant an my contibutions are not?: "Last Monday the guys from BREIN visited me at home to convince me to close ShareConnector or else they will start a civil proceeding with a claim. Of course, this does not mean I agree with their point of view, it's just that I can't afford taking any risks. As of today, November 12, 2007 I decided to close down. If there is anything new to report, you will be informed. Thank you for all your support and understanding". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breintrein (talk • contribs) 09:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I reverted everything because of the copy-vio, but feel free to add some other things. The quotation is dubious (at best) and I will look into it this weekend. I do advice against you removing it, as you have a conflict of interest and then it is better to be on the safe side of things.... Wikipedia is slightly conservative: it like to keep the old version if it is stable and there is no consensus for a change. However, that does not mean things can not be changed, just that if disagreements come up, people are allowed to revert, after which a discussion should be started on the talk page... L.tak (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

"BREIN’s focus is on the take down of illegal sites rather than the take down of individual content or links to such content.

BREIN is perhaps best known for it's legal battles against file sharing websites like the worlds biggest Bittorrent websites MininovaMininova Pays Settlement to BREIN to End BitTorrent Lawsuit and The PiratebayBREIN Tracks Down and Serves Pirate Bay Founder, On Film."

and

On February 9th 2011 the Dutch District Court of Haarlem ruled in the case filed, that FTD acts unlawfully and issued an injunction. FTD was obliged to ban all references to files of BREIN members on pain of a fineUsenet Portal Loses Landmark Court Case Against BREIN.

FTD maintained a searchable selection of referrals to the best quality files of the most popular entertainment content. in general those files were infringing and furthermore largely unfindable without FTD. The court ruled "that FTD structurally and systematically operates an Internet forum that facilitates and encourages illegal uploading and that she herself receives income but that the owners affiliated with BREIN suffer damage. Thus FTD is acting unlawfully."

FTD had also complained that BREIN director Tim Kuik would have called FTD's conduct "clearly punishable". The court ruled that Kuik was free to expose the conduct of FTD and communicate the opinion of BREIN. "In view of previous verdicts the statement clearly can not be considered to have been made lightly", said the judge. The request for rectification was therefore rejected by the court. --Breintrein (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BREIN. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091010045801/http://blog.brokep.com:80/2009/10/08/fail-in-nl/ to http://blog.brokep.com/2009/10/08/fail-in-nl/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091012004645/http://blog.brokep.com:80/2009/10/10/follow-up-in-breinfail/ to http://blog.brokep.com/2009/10/10/follow-up-in-breinfail/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BREIN. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/10/23/ecrdownload123.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403090630/http://www.futureofcopyright.com:80/home/blog-post/2011/02/15/filesharing-community-ftd-throws-in-the-towel-after-dutch-court-ruling.html to http://www.futureofcopyright.com/home/blog-post/2011/02/15/filesharing-community-ftd-throws-in-the-towel-after-dutch-court-ruling.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply