Slashdot Mirror
Court Orders Shutdown of H-1B Critics' Websites
theodp writes "Computerworld reports that a NJ Superior Court Judge ordered hosting firms to shut down three Web sites that oppose the H-1B visa program and seeks information about the identity of anonymous posters. GoDaddy, Network Solutions, Comcast and DiscountASP.Net were ordered to disable ITgrunt.com, Endh1b.com, and Guestworkerfraud.com. Facebook Inc. was also ordered to disable ITgrunt's Facebook page. The judge's order was made in response to a libel lawsuit filed by Apex Technology Group Inc., which is citing its copyright ownership as it seeks the identity of the poster of a since-removed Apex employment agreement on Docstoc.com, which drew critical comments on US and India websites."
More than that... What exactly is the site doing that would cause a takedown order for the whole domain? I mean, taking down a confidential company document is one thing... But to just issue an order to remove the domain entirely seems like too much.
But, I'm sure that when the sites come back up, they'll have even more readership.
Or even if it could be copyrighted, how that copyright could trump anyone's first amendment rights to comment on a matter of national concern.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
They're suing for copyright infringement as well as libel? Please tell me there's something more to the libel allegations than just the posting of the contract. Otherwise, they're either suing for libel over the posting of a legitimate document or suing for copyright infringement over a document they do not own.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
More than that... What exactly is the site doing that would cause a takedown order for the whole domain? I mean, taking down a confidential company document is one thing... But to just issue an order to remove the domain entirely seems like too much.
But, I'm sure that when the sites come back up, they'll have even more readership.
I agree there was no reason to take down the entire domains. This really seems like it's becoming a standard tactic: put conditions into a legally binding contract, and then cry "copyright violation" when the contract is posted in public to the embarassment of its authors. An employment agreement is generally such a contract.
I propose a change to the law along these lines: your contract may be legally binding and public-domain, or it may be non-binding and copyrightable. You are, after all, asking a government agency (a public servant) such as a court of law to enforce it for you.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Executive Management are not going to move overseas. Executive Management are the people (in the U.S. anyway) that are making money off of outsourcing. They are making a killing off of it and they don't want to be Chinese wage slaves anymore than any of us do.
The argument for outsourcing is that it allows everyone over here to do "more important jobs," i.e. Management. The flaw in this argument is that not everyone can be Managers. Some of us aren't cut out for it and there are always going to be those not smart enough for it.
What are you going to do with the doers if all the "menial" work is outsourced? We better be thinking of answers. Some of us can create small businesses, but not everyone.
If somebody can offer a service at a cheaper more efficient price, why not? All this humbug about salaries that one "deserves" to get is purely protectionist and doesn't benefit anybody. Offering cheaper overall inputs provide better value for all Americans to enjoy. If you're peddling global free trade, you've got to be willing to accept that labour needs to move freely and capitalism dictates that the person who can do it cheaper and offers an apple to apple comparison of quality will win. It's pure economics. If somebody can do something cheaper than you can, and is willing to do it, then there is nothing wrong with it.
I agree with this in theory. However, it's not the fact that there are a bunch of "Lazy Americans" (which there are plenty of hard working Americans BTW) who want their cake and be able to eat it too, it's the fact that the only commodity being banked on by companies are how to reduce salaries for the 97% of their worker base while the "Big C's" (CEO, CIO, CTO, CFO, etc..) keep their bonus' going up. It's about disparaging differences. I don't mind someone who has built a company up to keep a lions share, however, people with a backbone understand that without hardworking people in the company throughout the ranks, they would be no where and have no company. You are either Pimping or being Pimped now days.
Why doesn't any of this "globalization" affect health care? Where are my lower premiums or cost of health care when globalization is supposed to lower prices while raising service? I mean if you say it works for IT why not health care? Or how about food prices, they too are still going up even though there are many foods imported from all over the world. I guess your argument would be that they would be even higher if everything was left to grow only in the U.S. and sold in the U.S.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Don't know why I'm responding to an AC, but ok...
I don't know what you mean trying to distinguish copyright from DMCA. DMCA is a particular batch of revisions to the copyright law. To pursue the matter under DMCA means exactly the same thing in the US as to pursue the matter under copyright.
If you would bother to RTFA, you would see that they are asserting copyright. TFA doesn't say whether they formally issued a DMCA takedown notice (as they would to properly suppress distribution of copyrighted material); my guess is that they did not. A DMCA takedown notice would not have resulted in the entire domain being shut down in any case. That was a separate matter related to the libel assertions.
It appears the copyright assertion is being used as grounds to find the identity of the person who posted the material - as in, "I want to know who did this so I can sue them".
Your comments on trade secrets, and your thoughts on which IP laws would cover contracts, have nothing to do with anything, so I assume you're just using them to try to sound smart in spite of being unable to discern that there is more than one legal issue being discussed in the article.
On Dec. 23, Middlesex County Superior Court Judge James Hurley ordered firms that register domains...
How does a county judge in nowhere New Jersey have any jurisdiction over multiple companies that are not in his county? He can't order someone who lives in Bakersfield, CA arrested for knocking off a 7-11 in downtown LA. It has nothing to do with his jurisdiction.
DiscountASP.Net said it has disabled Endh1b.com after it received the order from the New Jersey Superior Court.
Is this the same court, or a state court of New Jersey? Regardless, the same question applies. GoDaddy's domain (whois) shows that they're in Arizona. How the hell does some random county or state judge in NJ have any authority over a company in Arizona? I'm not saying that APEX should have no recourse at all. They're entitled to be heard in a court of law, but shouldn't it have to be a court that actually has jurisdictional authority over the target (GoDaddy, DiscountASP, etc)
There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
Here's one guy's description of the Apex Technology Group's H-1B agreement (from http://ripoffatapextgi.blogspot.com/ ):
The document at http://www.docstoc.com/ is not available any more. I assume it was the victim of a takedown request.
Once again, I want to make it clear that I am in favor of technical immigration (both to and from the U.S., for that matter) but it's these kinds of alleged abuses that have made it clear that the H-1B program is fundamentally flawed.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.