Who Needs COICA When Homeland Security Gets To Seize Domain Names?
from the this-won't-end-well dept
By now you probably know that over the Thanksgiving Holiday, Homeland Security wasn't just feeling up your grandmother and staring at your naked daughter at the TSA, but ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) went way beyond its mandate to seize a whole bunch of domain names. This is not the first time it has done this, of course. Back in June, we noted a very similar, if somewhat smaller, raid. That one was equally questionable, as not only did it involve seizing domains without an adversarial trial, but also the announcement was made at Disney headquarters, which should make you wonder when Homeland Security started working for private corporations to shut down websites it does't like without a trial.The latest set of seizures is no less troubling. These domain seizures come even without the COICA law being in place, and despite assurances from COICA supporters that no such domain seizures would ever possibly come without a full trial first, many of the operators of the domain names seized in this round state they hadn't received any notification of complaints, let alone demands to be taken down.
And it gets even more ridiculous, as some of the sites taken down appear to be nothing more than search engines, which did not host any content and did not host any trackers, but simply acted as perfectly normal search engines. For anyone who actually understands how the internet works (i.e., clearly not Homeland Security) this is a massively troubling move, suggesting that if Homeland Security doesn't like how your search engine works, it can simply seize your domain and put up a really scary looking graphic, claiming it has taken over your website:
And, of course, none of this is actually stopping these sites from working. Within hours, many had popped back up elsewhere. The whole thing seems highly questionable. Seizing domain names without a trial, and taking down sites that appear to be nothing more than search engines, rather than actually hosting infringing material, is a huge, dangerous step, which appears to have absolutely nothing to do with Homeland Security's mandate.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, domain names, homeland security, ice, seizures
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It is time
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It is time
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So just wondering, did this announcement come from Google's or Bing's Headquarters?
Oh, they aren't really trying to eliminate the competition for the 'big boys' so that they can have a backdoor into all users search activity....
Ok, nothing to worry about move along folks, waves hand in the air while intoning 'These are not the search engines you are looking for' ....
Apparently homeland security has joined the JEDI religion and thinks we will fall for their silly mind tricks.... Silly Homeland Security... Trix are for kids
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
where was the trial? the due process? what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?
were the people who owned these sites even american? (that i need to look up before i write)
this is not a good thing, this is a dangerous slope.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Was over a torrent freak and posted these ideas
2) Use an alternate DNS server that keeps the URLs and addresses.
3) an automated app to automatically grab the seized domains and add them to the hosts file.
4) split off from ICANN and do an alt DNS system the US has no control over.
What Home Sec is not doing is remembering history. The catholic church used to maintain a list of banned books, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. The problem with the list is the books all became best sellers.
I think what you are going to see is curiosity kick in and people are going to seek out those sites. Much like the streisand effect. It will take less than 6 months for this to be an ineffective tool for Home Sec to use as the internet routes around obstructions and there have been a ton of suggestions already on how to deal with this.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Watching the watchers?
the Touch Some @ss folks are taking care of our security
maybe we could take time to read "Six Days of the Condor"?
Or for those who have been severely undereducated there is
the movie "Three Days of the Condor".
Life imitating fiction? You bet. Seems like D.C has hired
our best Speculative Fiction writers to protect us from something that isn't.
Now the Colonel shall go ride his bike while not wearing a
helmet.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This one has me scratching my head in the absence of such other information. Perhaps groups like the EFF will be able to fill in the blanks.
It does bear mentioning that COICA is not a law, but only a bill being considered within Congress. What does distinguish the provisions of the bill is the mandate for a lawsuit being filed and tried before a federal judge before any action can be taken.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
fake?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Toe in the water?
Imagine if you will: a public somewhat used to domain seizures for filesharing suddenly finding themselves unable to go to websites that the DHS has deemed as "promoting/protecting terror".
Feature creep, perhaps?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Did you know that the US Customs Service has been around since 1789? They did their job well Thursday. And legally.
Re COICA: No one ever claimed "no such domain seizures would ever possibly come without a full trial first". I wonder how that smelled when you pulled it out of your ass...
And stop with the "nothing more than a search engine" bullshit, Mike. We all know a piracy apologist like yourself is well aware of the contributory infringement decisions that have ended the life of so many of your beloved music piracy sites.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Worse than draconian is LAWLESS.
All of Mike's theories are premised on stable gov't that at least pretends you have rights, but as the TSA molestation and DHS seizing web sites now shows to even the dullest, all that's irrelevant in the 21st century.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It is time
Its been done already. DDNS
"or just a strait up P2P web."
This is already being developed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"pursuant to a seizure warrant issued by a United States District Court."
Property is seized from druglords all the time before trial.
You people need to grow the fu*k up.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Watching the watchers?
helmet."
You should always, ALWAYS, wear a helmet. Preferably a dark one....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Please note...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So when do they go after Google then, which, after all, is THE SINGLE LARGEST ABUSER OF 'CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT' ON THE PLANET??
Please. Enlighten us about this. Because, you cant jump and scream bloody murder about everyone else on this topic, and then just give Google a pass. They have 10,000 TIMES more links/info/references than ALL the other 'pirate' sites COMBINED.
Stop being an industry apologist shill.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: fake?
What is missing from Mike's article (unless I'm just reading it too fast) are the names/links to the sites in question. I like Mike's reporting, but there should be some due-diligence before rushing the blog post out.
-CF
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Was over a torrent freak and posted these ideas
2) Use an alternate DNS server that keeps the URLs and addresses.
3) an automated app to automatically grab the seized domains and add them to the hosts file.
Contrary to popular belief, domain names and IP addresses aren't 100% interchangeable. Yes, they work most of the time, but not all the time. Want proof?
The IP address for www.tvrage.com is 80.246.178.98. Try putting that in your address bar and see what you get. The IP address for epguides.com is 216.239.136.165 but try going there and you'll get the message "Unknown virtual host".
Just adding IP addresses to your hosts file isn't going to work in every case.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Torrent-Finder not on the list
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Toe in the water?
Feature creep, perhaps?"
By the time it gets to the point of feature creep DNS will be out of US hands. I claim the future top level domains .Dave .David .Hephaestus .ThanksDHS .... Welcome to the new wild west
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This one has me scratching my head in the absence of such other information. Perhaps groups like the EFF will be able to fill in the blanks.
It does bear mentioning that COICA is not a law, but only a bill being considered within Congress. What does distinguish the provisions of the bill is the mandate for a lawsuit being filed and tried before a federal judge before any action can be taken.
I don't believe it's necessarily true that criminal complaints have been filed against any of the people behind the sites. In fact, I'd be surprised if they have.
What's happening here is a civil forfeiture proceeding against the domain name (the "res") itself, which is, of course, a case that is an adversary proceeding. The operators of the sites are not themselves a party to the case, but they most certainly have the right to intervene as a third party.
Here, the prosecutor takes probable cause to a federal judge who issues a seizure warrant allowing the domain name to be seized. From there notice is sent to the person who registered the domain name and they have so many days to intervene if they so wish.
Of course, prosecutors take probable cause to judges to get warrants all the time, and the person against whom the warrant is issued is given no warning. And of course, such proceedings do not violate due process of law.
These in rem proceedings are exactly the same type as called for in COICA. In one sense they're nothing new since trademark law has allowed in rem proceedings against domain names under the ACPA for over a decade. In another sense, their use by law enforcement is novel since the underlying "wrong" is presumably a criminal charge and not civil cybersquatting as under the ACPA. I don't think that changes the due process analysis though.
One thing's for sure, this is all very interesting to watch.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This is CyberWar
Yes, this is what they mean when they say "cyberwar" and National Security. Reshaping the Internet into their vision is their purpose. Things are going to get very interesting indeed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Torrent-Finder not on the list
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"nothing more than a search engine"
You can do a file type search on all major search engines, does that make them all guilty of "contributory infringement"? Why doesn't the government go after Google? eh? Not so easy of a target perhaps?
"....decisions that have ended the life of so many of your beloved music piracy sites."
should read... decisions that have ended the life of so many of your beloved music piracy sites, only to have them pop back up hours later somewhere else.
You, like the government, are an idiot if you think any one governement, person, or agency can "block" or "remove" anything from internet. If the people want it, it will simply show up somewhere else. The internet is designed to route around problems, you sir, have been routed around...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Watching the watchers?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It is time
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What's concerning is the sites that hosted absolutely no infringing material at all, including at least one (torrent-finder) that was just a search engine. It was essentially no different from conducting google queries with "filetype:torrent" attached. It would be a huge legal stretch even to file a civil infringement suit against that site, let alone accuse them of a crime, so I see absolutely no legal basis for seizing the domain. COICA might contain provisions for that, but the law as it stands doesn't.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: fake?
http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domain-and-m ore-101126/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It is time
I'm finding a severe lack of info as well. I hate having to dig into source just to figure out "What does this software do?" Not gonna waste my time, in this case.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Was over a torrent freak and posted these ideas
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Agreed. I wonder what the reaction is going to be.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I didn't really understand that comment either. Under COICA, as here, the *temporary* seizure warrant is issued ex parte. But once the domain name is seized, the person who registered the domain name is contacted and invited to intervene in the proceedings. Whether or not they do in fact intervene is their choice, but you cannot say they did not have an opportunity to make their case. In other words, there is a trial if the people behind the site want it. The *temporary* seizure warrant is not made *permanent* until after the adversary hearing is over.
Nobody ever said that the *temporary* seizures would not happen absent an adversary hearing, and I believe it is incorrect to suggest otherwise. That's simply not how COICA or these in rem proceedings work. What people have claimed, and what is true, is that the seizure does not become *permanent* until there is an adversary hearing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Interesting stuff
From the comments
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It is time
This is usually the problem with really cool, really useful software. It's designed by a developer who's been doing this so long they've lost touch with non-developers.
You want to make something useful that will spread (and something like this needs to spread) you have to make it simple enough that 95% of the world can use it, that way it spreads quickly and easily (and add advanced features so those who know what they're doing can enhance the experience).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hopefully someone will challenge these proceedings on constitutional grounds and we get to watch it go up through the legal system. I don't think the constitutionality of these seizures changes whether COICA is law yet or not, so it's would be essentially a test of COICA for one of these seizures to go to court.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, who needs a silly trial, right? Criminals don't deserve trials, those are only for the innocent, huh? Yeah, makes perfect sense.
/s
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
(sorry for the leak Mike but I felt like that had to be brought up here!)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It is time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I2P
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously I still think there should always be a trial, and there always will be a trial. We are talking about where along the line proper adversarial proceedings occur.
So what I'm responding to is the comparison to seizing a drug lord's property, which can happen with a warrant as part of an investigation. In the case of criminal infringement charges I can see the similarity - in the case of potential civil infringement or no evidence of infringement at all, it seems like massive censorship.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
When a seizure if of evidence. That's not the case here. The purpose here is to deprive a person of something without trial. Whether that something is freedom, property, or something else, seizing it without trial most certainly does violate due process, despite what any corrupt judge may say.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not just evidence that can be seized, but also "instrumentalities" of crime. I imagine that's what these domain names would fall under.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Mandates
Silly boy, there are written mandates and unwritten mandates. Homeland Security's unwritten mandate is to eliminate freedom, foster a totalitarian state, and serve the interests of the corporate-government state. Thus, these actions follow that mandate perfectly well.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well good for you. Now be a good sheeple and move along - nothing for you to see here and ignore the man behind the curtain.
As for myself - I trust no one's authority but my own.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is also a violation of due process.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It is time
Netsukuku and Osiris Serverless Portal System(Soon to be GPL'ed).
Both came from the country that is trying to destroy freedom(Italy), so if history fallows that, you can see a lot more people going that route.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Toe in the water?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Kind of like how gun or automobile dealers or even grocers provide "instrumentalities" of crime. Yes, shut them all down, without trial.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Was over a torrent freak and posted these ideas
You are correct about what happens if you put an ip address in your address bar because your browser includes the host name in the url in its request, so that shared web servers can differentiate requests coming in for multiple domains that may be hosted on the same server. Using a hosts file allows this mechanism to work properly even if the host name no longer resolves in "real" dns just as well as if you never bother to register it and only use host files (say on a small network of your own).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is CyberWar
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Heh, these industry shills are pretty obvious sometimes. They sure hate the truth, don't they?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Only a "temporary" injustice, huh? Would you mind if I "temporarily" beat you about the head with a large stick? I'll eventually stop, I promise.
Or maybe "temporary" will just be for a "limited time", like copyright, like life plus 70 years. Or maybe "forever minus a day". Yeah, temporary's just fine.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Netsukuku is great in that it can create wireless mesh networks that bypass ISP's completely(although I didn't test that yet).
http://osiris.kodeware.net/
Both are writen in real languages not that JAVA crapoula.
Isn't that great
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And another type of unseizeble pages.
http://kpvz7ki2v5agwt35.onion/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Watching the watchers?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It is time
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Was over a torrent freak and posted these ideas
that is due to a method called Host Header Values (the site listens for for multiple urls on that IP and serves up whichever one you type in. If you were to place the FQDN and IP in your hosts file, then your browser would append the HHV to the GET request and the porper page will come upl.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It is time
Netsukuku looks like it would be a pain in the ass since it would require an entirely new network.
Osiris looks like something I need to check out.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Toe in the water?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It is time
Filesharing Forum for GNUNET client(can only be viewed using TOR)
http://dg6exbqq42btatnw.onion/
Apparently that has been working for a couple of years now.
How to trace that?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is time
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or maybe "temporary" will just be for a "limited time", like copyright, like life plus 70 years. Or maybe "forever minus a day". Yeah, temporary's just fine.
I don't really follow you. The site's operators can intervene immediately once the warrants are executed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: fake?
SEW had actually written an entire separate article calling it a hoax... but then took it down and admitted that it apparently checks out. I've seen no evidence to suggest it's actually a hoax...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Hummmmmm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There is nothing inaccurate in my statement, is there? I'm at a loss as to what you're complaining about. Customs is under Homeland Security. Saying so is accurate. If you are complaining about something where I made a factual error, please clarify.
Re COICA: No one ever claimed "no such domain seizures would ever possibly come without a full trial first". I wonder how that smelled when you pulled it out of your ass...
In the earlier comments sections on COICA stories people did, in fact, make such a claim. I didn't make it up. I find it funny that those who made that claim are now hiding from it by pretending I made it up. Amusing.
And stop with the "nothing more than a search engine" bullshit, Mike.
Again, you seem to have a real problem when I describe something accurately, because you don't want such accurate descriptions being made. I would suggest this might say more about your position than your belief in truth.
We all know a piracy apologist like yourself is well aware of the contributory infringement decisions that have ended the life of so many of your beloved music piracy sites.
I've never had any "beloved music piracy sites." I don't file share. I've never used any such sites. But, in response to the key part of your comment, yes, we are aware of contributory infringement decisions under US law. TPB is not based in the US, so US law on the matter is not binding.
Furthermore, the US legal rulings were a definite shift in the law due to a court's decision. Congress had a chance to put contributory infringement into copyright law and *chose not to do so*. This is a highly dynamic area of law, and assuming that a couple of US decisions is suddenly well established is pretty funny.
Furthermore, there are some key differences between those that were found guilty of contributory infringement, such as Grokster and The Pirate Bay in how they function. Those who don't wish to understand the actual issues and the unintended consequences are free to pretend they're the same, but the end results may come back to haunt you.
Finally, if you believe so strongly in contributory infringement decisions in the court, then these sites should have been taken to trial, not just seized by the government.
Why would you be against due process like that? I do wonder...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
gnunet://ecrs/chk/C00KA4ESVK7URORI2ID42H3FL6S8RERV1AG2MRKE8M7J6JKLTSL7OB9VAC8PSLAEU7NMIK4C HTOC098HTRU74JJ5TFMIL0DU5ROEEJ8.VRO032B02MDKCNO3FBML29K03FT0BU53ODFTDDE9QVPFODJHC55FH7OST244V51655HV QFEVBPBOTDNN9FBC65N13LHJ4NB2TEQJP4G.6135
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
In the case of websites, simply take a copy of the website.
You don't have to 'take the website away', just like ripping a CD onto your computer doesn't magically melt the CD.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Interesting stuff
Actually, I wouldn't read too much into that. While I disagree with much of what ICANN does, Rod is a smart guy. He was only cyber chief for a very short time, and he left because the Defense Department and the NSA tried to claim control over fighting "cyberwar." Rod's book "starfish and the spider" says a lot of stuff that actually agrees with what we talk about here, about the power of distributed forces vs. centralized ones.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Gotcha. They're undoubtedly are criminal investigations tied to these seizures, and it'll be interesting to see how many criminal charges are actually filed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center): http://www.ice.gov/iprcenter/
According to the website, it's a coordinated effort by:
* U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
* U.S. Customs and Border Protection
* Federal Bureau of Investigation
* Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations
* U.S. Postal Inspection Service
* Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration
* U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
* Naval Criminal Investigative Service
* Defense Criminal Investigative Service
* U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Command, Major Procurement Fraud Unit
* General Services Administration, Office of Inspector General
* Consumer Product Safety Commission
* INTERPOL
* Government of Mexico Tax Administration Service
Considering that these are federal crimes occurring interstate and internationally, I'm not surprised at who the players are.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Watching the watchers?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes.
But if I understand correctly, search and seizure warrants happen all the time as part of criminal investigations.
Violations of due process are routine. They are, however, still violations no matter how routine they may be.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You gotta be careful about those torrent files... they can contain viruses and poison your computer...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Toe in the water?
I want the TLD .local so I can make it respond to requests for *anything*.local with a message "your IT guy didn't setup your network properly". If a network is setup correctly, this can not affect it.
I will be the first to admit that I know nothing about how Linux domains work.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Probably will blow up in the face of the government.
I saw a lot of law blogs linking to those news and they are not happy about it apparently.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It is time
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is yet another way false bs gets spread on techdirt...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I still have no idea why this is not considered unconstitutional, as was the case in Fort Wayne Books v. Indiana:
(Emphasis mine.)
Translation: You shouldn't be able to seize an entire website, just as you shouldn't be able to seize an entire bookstore, until after an adversarial hearing before a judge. It cannot be done "pretrial." If you do, it's "prior restraint" and unconstitutional.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
i mean, from bikes to trains to video games it is just the biggest toy store there is. so i don't want to grow up because, AC, if i did, i couldn't be a toys r us kid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
For example: One of the domains seized was RapGodFathers.com, which was a discussion site devoted to rap-related issues. Occasionally, a user (not a moderator) would post a link to a "mix tape" he made; mix tapes are often used by rap artists to break into the scene. The site itself hosted no infringing content, did not operate a tracker, and did not advertise itself as a site where you could download any content (infringing or not). If the site owners got a DMCA takedown request, that request would be honored, and the posts would be edited or removed.
In other words: it's a site whose primary purpose was protected speech, and was obeying the law as it currently stands, yet it was taken down without prior notice.
Another example: The site Torrent-Finder.com. Not only did this site not host infringing content, it didn't host torrent files either, nor did it run a tracker. Instead, it allowed you to search other websites, and it displayed the results in an iframe. If you don't believe me, torrent-finder.info (a mirror) is still up and running; check it out yourself.
Not only was it not involved in direct infringement, it wasn't a third party to infringement either. More like a "fourth party." If it is guilty, then so is Google, Bing, or Yahoo!, all of which do the same thing.
I'll bet if I checked out the other sites, I'd find that the majority of them were sites like the ones above. And these sites should not be shut down at all - much less without a trial.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I get it, the government TOLD you that they were seizing the websites for copyright infringement and you believed them... Guess we'll never know what the real reasons are, since the sites that could be used to prove or disprove have been taken by the government.
First they came for the Copyright Infringers, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't one,
Then they came for the Political Dissidents, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't one,
You can figure out the rest....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obscenity isn't protected speech either, yet that's exactly what the case was about.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It is time
You may be interested in alternative DNS roots as another option.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
We discussed this above, but seizing any materials even potentially protected by the First Amendment, prior to an adversarial hearing, is unconstitutional prior restraint. Whether that seizure is "temporary" or not.
Yes, the temporary seizures happen without an adversarial hearing. (The permanent seizures do not.)
And yes, materials that are potentially infringing are protected speech. They don't lose their protected status until after they're found to be infringing.
Furthermore, under the current COICA text, the government isn't just taking action against the alleged infringers, but against third parties as well. ISP's face penalties if they resolve the domain name; "financial transaction providers" (e.g. Visa) face penalties if they allow their services to be used by the websites; and advertisers face penalties if they allow their ads to be placed on the sites. Those penalties kick in the moment the temporary warrant is issued.
What's worse: even if those ISP's, credit card companies, and advertisers do not get an injunction from the Attorney General, they are immune from all liability if they cut off service to any websites that they believe are "dedicated to infringing activities."
This bill is both unconstitutional prior restraint regarding the "infringing" websites themselves, and de facto censorship through those third parties.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Toe in the water?
Even this well written article on the issue presumes for the 'best option' that you have a domain name. Buying one for the sole purpose of Active Directory seems rather silly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, it's likely that most of these sites aren't engaging in "federal crimes."
They could possibly be sued for contributory infringement, but that's hardly the same as being guilty of criminal infringement. Criminal infringement must be "willful" and commercial.
So, a whole slew of Federal agencies are spending manpower and resources on people who may be tort defendants, but are not criminals.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I get the argument, but I'm just not sure a domain name being seized under copyright and trademark law is analogous to a bookstore being seized under anti-obscenity laws. Of course you can argue that it is, but I think it's debatable, and I'm not aware of any caselaw on point.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And yet preliminary injunctions are issued in infringement cases with regularity.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is simply not so. The Net Act criminalized non-commercial copyright infringement. Also, keep in mind that these sites are being seized for trademark infringement and/or copyright infringement.
So, a whole slew of Federal agencies are spending manpower and resources on people who may be tort defendants, but are not criminals.
No offense, but I'll take a federal prosecutor's and a federal judge's determination that there is probable cause that the sites were involved in criminal acts over your theory that they weren't.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Watching the watchers?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This is CyberWar
http://questioncopyright.org/redefining_property
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
If OnSmash
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
This did not happen. I'm affiliated with 2 BLOGS (not music piracy sites) that were on this list and neither were notified, still have not been notified, were given no warnings in advance nor notices, and 99% of the content on the blogs was provided by the record labels, artists, and producers. In fact there are several instances of the artists and labels themselves tweeting links to those two BLOGS to promote the songs on the blog.
The sites actually went down on Thanksgiving, and there has still be no communication with anybody and no information whatsoever on who to contact or how to proceed.
http://twitter.com/kanyewest/status/29634496522
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thus, they are considered the property of those that use them as such.
Counterfeiting, copyright infringement, and contributory infringement are against the law and are not examples of protected free speech or expression.
When website property is seized due to committing the above illegal acts, it is NOT CENSORSHIP.
There is NO PRIOR RESTRAINT. If there was, Napster, Grokster, and Limewire would have successfully used that 1st Amendment protection for their defense.
As shown by Arcara v Cloud Books, even if an entity happens to engage in some legal activity, that does not exonerate them from their illegal activity.
Trying to import and export counterfeited property into the US is illegal. There WAS due process done by Customs; A court order and warrant were obtained prior to seizure.
People on this ridiculous, propagandistic blog need to stop lying about what happened Thursday, and what will continue to happen to those that think they can break the law on the internet.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is CyberWar
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Was over a torrent freak and posted these ideas
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I know. But the word "willful" is actually in the law. The NET Act merely re-defined "commercial" to include "the expectation of private gain" - so trading software is also "commercial." It also set minimum dollar amounts to be considered "criminal" infringement (which are ridiculously low).
However, all of that applies to direct infringement. I've never seen a single case in copyright history where a contributory infringer was charged with criminal infringement. Even Napster, Limewire, and Grokster weren't charged with a crime, and those sites are much more "devoted to infringement" than any of the sites taken down this weekend.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll take a federal prosecutor's and a federal judge's determination that there is probable cause that the sites were involved in criminal acts over your theory that they weren't.
You don't have to - some are back up at a mirror sites:
http://torrent-finder.info/
It doesn't host infringing content; doesn't host torrent files; and doesn't run a torrent tracker. It is functionally no different than Google (though it's a major pain in the ass).
Another site was RapGodfathers.com, a five-year-old forum site. That site is also back online at an .info domain, so you can judge for yourself whether they deserve to be locked up.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tired argument is tired...
Try using a RELEVANT argument to the issue at hand.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They were already ruled as being analogous in CDT v. Pappert, which used the Fort Wayne Books ruling as case law.
And the Pappert case was about child pornography, a much more serious problem (and much less protected form of speech) than copyright infringement.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And with that one statement you show you do not understand the law *at all*. Seriously talk to *any* 1st Amendment lawyer and have them set you straight.
They are vessels for expression and speech. A website can not express something on its own. It must be created, and there is always a person(s) behind that.
Wow. You do not understand what qualifies as speech. Based on this argument, a newspaper isn't speech either. And you must know that's wrong.
There is NO PRIOR RESTRAINT. If there was, Napster, Grokster, and Limewire would have successfully used that 1st Amendment protection for their defense.
*sigh* Already explained why this is wrong.
As shown by Arcara v Cloud Books, even if an entity happens to engage in some legal activity, that does not exonerate them from their illegal activity.
Already explained why Arcara doesn't apply.
People on this ridiculous, propagandistic blog need to stop lying about what happened Thursday, and what will continue to happen to those that think they can break the law on the internet.
The only one lying appears to be you. Seriously. A website isn't speech? I can't stop laughing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
UK are at it as well
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, where are the trials for the June domain name seizures?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the Pappert case was about child pornography, a much more serious problem (and much less protected form of speech) than copyright infringement.
I don't really think Pappert does much work for us here, since in that case the problem was the lack of adversary proceedings. Not to mention they took down over a million websites in an effort to block less than 400 sites accused of having kiddie porn.
By the way, Karl, I read this paper last night when I was up with the little one, and I thought you'd enjoy it: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/copyinj.htm
Title is "FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND INJUNCTIONS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES"
It argues that there shouldn't be injunctions in IP cases. Professors Lemley and Volokh always make for a good read.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a great question.
The seizure warrant from 7 of the domain names seized in June is here: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/Warrant.pdf
United States v. TVShack.net et al., S.D.N.Y., No. 10 MAG 1421
I couldn't find anything on Westlaw, Lexis, or PACER. It could be sealed, or else maybe I'm just not using the right search terms. I dunno.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Link to why Napster, Grokster, and Limewire didn't successfully use a prior restraint defense?
Link to where you successfully refute that Arcara doesn't apply?
Of course there's no links. They don't exist.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if you want to head back to the recent post where Arcara got tossed around for two straight days, you will see Mike and a few other lawyers in the comments refute it over and over and over again (not that any of you people who keep bringing it up seem to bother reading those refutations - then you'd have to admit they exist, I guess)
Look, let me try to say this clearly: your point seems to be based on the fact that you believe these sites should go down, and you refuse to believe that a procedure which achieves your desired effect could be wrong.
But that's the rub - even if I agreed with you that these sites are evil and should be banished from the web, I wouldn't agree with how it was done here. Because it's absolutely vital that we are consistent about the law, even when we don't like the outcome - after all, it's those undesirable outcomes that force laws to change and evolve and move forward.
So apart from the fact that I disagree with your stance on these sites, I question whether you are even mature or intelligent enough to participate in a debate about the law, since for you it is all about achieving your desired goals, not about interpreting the law properly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Press the Reset Button
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you claiming you know more about the law than them?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, all of that applies to direct infringement. I've never seen a single case in copyright history where a contributory infringer was charged with criminal infringement. Even Napster, Limewire, and Grokster weren't charged with a crime, and those sites are much more "devoted to infringement" than any of the sites taken down this weekend.
How do you figure that the criminal copyright laws only applies to direct infringement? 17 U.S.C. 506 doesn't say that: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
I think maybe you're thinking in terms of civil liability, where with these seizures the issue is criminal liability.
In criminal law, there is accomplice liability, conspirator liability, aiding and abetting, hindering prosecution, etc. I think you need to look at their activities through a criminal law lens.
I've never really researched the issue, and I'm too busy now to do so, but I'd be really surprised if liability for criminal copyright infringement only applied to direct infringers.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fine. You're right, I can't claim to "know more about the law" than the AG and a judge, and neither can anyone here. So... discussion over, I guess?
Next time, just say that at the beginning then go away and let the grownups talk.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is time
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
* Defense Criminal Investigative Service
* U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Command
So, the military is also going to be at Disney's beck and call.
Looks like Crazy Horse 18 is going to be having a little fun with "illegal downloaders" too. (That'll teach 'em.) I wonder if we'll get the video. Will people get missile strikes for sharing it?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it is. Due process is due process whether some judge signs off on violating it or not.
This is yet another way false bs gets spread on techdirt...
You were referring to your own comment?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, kind of like how a newspaper itself is not speech, but merely a vessel for expression and speech. As such, there is nothing wrong with shutting one down for whatever reason, huh?
What a load. You industry shills really take the cake.
People on this ridiculous, propagandistic blog need to stop lying about what happened Thursday, and what will continue to happen to those that think they can break the law on the internet.
Come on, darryl, we know it's you.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've been thinking about this one, and I think the answer is that under the law as it stands now, there is nothing that says the feds have to immediately inform the domain name owner of the seizure, nor must they at the same time give them a hearing on the issue. In other words, the government can stall things.
But, under COICA I believe there is a requirement of simultaneous notification to the domain name owner of the seizure with a window of opportunity for them to respond. In other words, COICA gives more protection to the domain name owners, in this respect anyhow, than they get under the current law.
And you guys were complaining that COICA was all bad. Sheesh. :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Piracy IS Illegal
Copyright law has been well established for decades now. No new law needs to be created in order to enforce existing copyright statutes. These websites are lucky that their developers/CEO's weren't arrested/fined outright.
Marie Summers, Director of Marketing
BrandtMorain Studios
www.brandtmorain.com
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Piracy IS Illegal
And tyranny has been well established for eons. So what else is new? Both should be abolished.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is like the CIA operating within the US boarders. That is illegal and they have been proven to do so. An example being how the CIA could not believe Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota. Before he even walked into the governor's office they took him to the basement, put him in a room, proceeded to interrogate him, and most in the room with the CIA would not say who they were or what their position in the CIA was.
What the CIA did was not only a violation of the CIA mandate, it was a violation of the state's law, Federal law, and the US Constitution. Which is exactly what this little group working together is as well. One reason being is that it is illegal for foreign law enforcement to be involved in the governing or enforcement of laws in the United States.
If any supposed crimes are taking place in regards to this and it is an American citizen or legal resident committing them, then it falls under the jurisdiction of the FBI solely or the state it is taking place in, not DHS, NCIS, or any other Federal organization / law enforcement agency.
On that note of legal citizens, have you ever heard of them going after an illegal alien? Nope! And guess what they never do on any level. An illegal alien drives drunk and they are let go. Two illegal aliens try to steal an old man's trailer from his yard, in the process try to run him down, he shoots at them to defend himself, and they are let go while the old man is charged with attempted murder. You can Google that! It happened in 2010.
So how about as a nation we worry about these types of things first. Focus on securing our boarders where we have lost 80 miles in from the boarder of Arizona to Mexican drug cartels, corrupt cops, and military, then worry about everything else.
The US Government claims we could be terrorists while irradiating us and sexually assaulting us in violation of the Constitution, but it leaves the Mexican boarder wide open for real terrorists to come right in, which the cartels, the Mexican cops and military they have on the payrolls, are all terrorists under the twisted US Government definition of the word. They have secured the Canadian boarder going so far as splitting towns that straddle it, separating families, if not deporting families from their homes of generations.
Like some Canadian is going to commit a terrorist act against the US, come on, Mexico is full of individuals who want to destroy the US. They stopped the fence and virtual fence going up along the boarder. They even admitted they had no intent of putting it up.
Wake the hell up. This is just a ploy to silence alternative outlets to the mainstream media the government and corporations to control with using these sites as a test to see how far they can push us.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Piracy IS Illegal
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply