Slashdot Mirror
US Pirate Movie Site DNS Seizure Fail
An anonymous reader writes "Last week, the US government in a highly publicized copyright protection frenzy took the extraordinary step of seizing domain names from foreign movie sites like NinjaVideo.net and TVshack.net. While the seizure raises confusing Internet legal / jurisdiction questions (the US and perhaps the state of Kentucky can seize domain names for foreign companies?), this study shows the legal issues may be moot — the raids mostly failed. Within hours of domain name seizure, tvshack.cc was back up and running (but this time using a Chinese registrar and a Cocos Islands ccTLD)."
More recently in 2008, Kentucky courts seized the domain names for 141 online gambling sites (all for companies based in other countries including Malta and Costa Rica). The Kentucky court action threatened to disrupt global traffic to PokerStars, Full Tilt, Absolute Poker and many others. As of March of this year the case is still winding its way through Kentucky appellate and supreme court (the case has been reversed then upheld and is currently resolving issues of standing).
What gives US the right to seize domains of companies based in other countries and force their laws, views and things like ACTA and banning of internet casinos to citizens of other countries?
You wouldn't want China to take down international sites that violate their laws, would you? Or radical countries like North Korea? It's not even just about Internet, but in general too. What makes it OK for USA to do so. Actually, instead of filtering maybe China should start just taking down the sites they don't like.
Since US tries to put laws on the citizens of other countries, I say it's only fair other countries do the same. Like execute the death sentence of Facebook CEO. The best thing about this is that if Zuckerberg gets put into Interpol wanted list, he gets extradited to Pakistan as soon as he visits some other country. It's only fair, right?
Please don't confuse us with our government. We're as fucking dumbstruck and horrified with this as you are. Just...wtf?
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
Please don't confuse us with our government. We're as fucking dumbstruck and horrified with this as you are. Just...wtf?
You voted them in, so the're your responsibility. Unless you want to go the tin-foil hat route and say that the US populace has no influence or control over their government - in which case I would be looking for another country of residence.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I think its a sign of desperation. They know they are losing the war, and instead of changing with the times, they are adopting basically undefensable, unwinnable strategies.
I'm not forming an opinion on who's right or who's wrong, but I can tell you who is winning.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
Nothing gives the US that right. I'd say a fair amount of people here feel the same way I do about that (at least I hope so).
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
What gives the US the right is simply this: the registry for said TLD is located in the US.
Just like China can apply their local laws to the TLD registry they control ,.cn, and North Korea can apply its laws to .nk, so can the US do the same for the registries which are based there: .com, .net, .org, .us.
The same applies to webservers: no matter under what TLD a webserver serves, if it's physically located inside the US, US laws apply to this server. In that case the US can't control the DNS name of the sites which are served but the pages/sites themselves.
If you don't like that, you can only try to convince your preferred registry to relocate to a country which has laws and procedures which are better suited to your goals. Or you could simply register a domain under that country's TLD.
Owned! Now get ice back to work fighting the drug cartels.
I don't know if you realize this, but we have a 2 party system. Every four years, we're faced with a decision between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. The government is not accountable to us, so long as they're getting the terrorists.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
NinjaVideo.net and TVshack.net? Never heard of either one - UNTIL NOW. I hope one of them has Blake's 7, haven't seen that since I was a kid.
But we invented it! Al Gore laid the tubes himself! Shouldn't we get to make the rules and get to say who can use it and who can't?
rule of law is dead
When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
It's simple really. .net is a TLD owned by the USA. I don't agree with their views, but their methods are somewhat reasonable. If you get a .net domain, you play by USA rules, if you get a .cn domain, you play by China's rules, and if you get a .ru domain, you play by Russia's rules. TVShack didn't play well with the USA, the USA kicked them out, and now TVShack has shacked up with Cocos Island.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if all domain names had less strict rules, but that just isn't how it is.
Unfortunately there are a lot more like this lady than there are of me.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
The execution of the majority of government policy is left to unelected bureacrats.
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
- Princess Leia to Grand Moff Tarkin
The United States would do well to understand what this means. We can benefit immensely by being the "central hub" of the Internet but we are pissing this historical advantage away at a frightening pace by not living up to our ideals with respect to "freedom of speech". The Patriot Act did wonders to ensure that we couldn't host data for other countries; and now this retarded "kill switch" idea will do the same for our ability to broker connections.
There really should be an actual litmus test so that people in charge of sectors of our economy have some clue how that sector works. Unfortunately for us, the world doesn't work that way.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I don't know where you vote, but my ballots frequently have more than two candidates on them, in addition to a write in option. You are perfectly free to choose as you please. The government is as accountable as we make it, and not one iota more. All this whining is just an attempt to shed personal responsibility.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I think its a sign of desperation. They know they are losing the war, and instead of changing with the times, they are adopting basically undefensable, unwinnable strategies.
Given that I'd never heard of these sites until they got some federally subsidized free publicity, I'd have to agree with you.
That said, I'd love to see the MPAA turn around and sue the Feds for contributory copyright infringement.
I just went to tvshack.cc and my virusscanner (NOD32) went nuts and Java things started executing. I killed everything before it had a chance to do anything, but I'd say watch your step if you're going to visit that site.
I don't know where you vote, but my ballots frequently have more than two candidates on them, in addition to a write in option. You are perfectly free to choose as you please. The government is as accountable as we make it, and not one iota more. All this whining is just an attempt to shed personal responsibility.
Or it's just realistic. You can vote, technically, for whoever you want. But when the media and 99% of everyone else is touting a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, the dumb masses of the public:
a) won't vote for someone else in an organized effort
b) think voting with "their" party is still the best option (even though their views might be wildly different), or
c) have no idea what the other options are
Realistically, you'd have to have more than a 2-party system in order to pull anything off. That means including more parties in official debates, getting some media exposure (they are currently largely ignored), etc. No exposure = no chance, and right now the media and the existing 2 major parties control the exposure, and thus the chance of anything different happening.
It's not so black and white, and it's not about shedding personal responsibility. It's about what the current situation is.
But yes, actions DO speak louder than words.
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
What part of "Ninja" don't you understand?
That's why you get the three letter TLDs like .com and everybody else has to be satisfied with things like .co.uk and .co.cn. Same reason the UK is the only country that doesn't have the country name on its postage stamps, the USA is the only country that doesn't (have to) have its country identifier as its TLD.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
What a crock of shit. Let me know how third party voting and making the government responsible to you goes.
And this is why third-party voting in the US fails so miserably. "I don't wanna waste my vote by voting for a guy who actually represents what I want in government. I wanna vote for someone who might win."
Independents and minor parties win seats all the time in other countries.
You, and only you are responsible for your vote. Propping up the regulars is your choice.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
No write in? Then work your magic on the primaries
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
For me, it opened up a Chrome process which, according to top, was using 19Mbytes. System Monitor shows no unusual activity and no unexpected network traffic. Nothing interesting happened at all. Am I missing something?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
What gives US the right to seize domains of companies based in other countries and force their laws, views and things like ACTA and banning of internet casinos to citizens of other countries?
If you are in another country YOU OBEY THEIR LAWS.
;-)
The US did NOT overstep their boundries. The mentioned websites Hosted part of their website (the pointer to it) In the US. That 'pointer' was seized as it was illegal in our country.
Again:
1. Internet website did business with US Company. (They used a US registrar)
2. US based Registrar now violated US Law
3. US based Registrar was required to give the US Government the illegal 'property'
Don't host any part of your 'business' or 'website' in a country that violates their laws. If you want to intentionally violate the laws of a country, don't do it IN that country. It's just common sense!
If you think the USA is wrong here, GO TO China, or the UK, and break their laws. See what happens.
Side Note: I agree with most net-neutrality ideas. I agree with free speech (as it exists in the US law) on the internet -- (e.g. illegal to yell FIRE or call in bomb threats, but mostly free). Unfortunately the US General Public has almost no control here. Sorry. Big Business buy votes and forces our government to enforce laws they created.
I'm glad the sites are running again. As they are not illegal in other countries I respect your rights to view the content in accordance with your laws... And I'll leave that at that as I'm in the USA...
Fortunately for you, people like that lady rarely can be bothered to actually go vote, whereas people like this lady take it as their Holy Mission to get to the polls for every single general, primary, or school board election.
Perhaps if we all didn't get so wrapped up in the moral panics and anger points politicians use to manipulate us, you and I could elect people who'd actually do something sane about things like IP laws and their enforcement... you know, "stuff that matters."
You obviously have tuned in to all of none of the shows.
I have tuned in to quite a few of those shows and find in general that their discussions are so propped up by logical fallacies and bad research that they are a joke.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
The US is always right. That's why the US can have 2400 active warheads while Iran having even one is geopolitical heresy, why the US pushing copyright on the rest of the world is acceptable while China pushing internet censorship on just their own citizens is not, and why the US can invade Afghanistan and Iraq while Russia can't invade Georgia.
At least that's what the US media says. I imagine Pravda et al. are equally biased in their own directions.
I posted elsewhere but feel it's worth mentioning again:
Illegal property located in the USA was seized by US officials for violating US law. They used a US registrar to point to their content that was illegal in the US. (i.e. don't host your anti-china website in china, don't host your anti-uk site in the UK. If your website violates a countries laws, don't host any part of it IN THAT COUNTRY)
IN THIS CASE, No foreign countries were involved, No over reaching of US bounds. I agree sometimes the government (while spurred by big business) do this... It is NOT the case here.
The short: When in a foreign country, do not violate their laws. They 'purchased' something in a country where it was illegal. That illegal property was seized. Their fault for violating local laws.
You also read Slashdot.
Don' you in the US have some laws that prevent your authorities from randomly seizing property? The operators of the sites have not been called to any trial, have had no verdict against them and from what has been reported, no investigation has even been opened. It is understandable if they would have seized the servers, as those can be used as evidence in a trial. Domain names on the other hand can not, which makes it plainly obvious that the only reason for their seizure was to disrupt the websites operations.
Football Odds
You are absolutely right about why there is no viable third party in the US.
However, you are completely and utterly missing the GP's point (at least I think you are - I don't speak for him, obviously).
The point is not that we are forced to vote for one of the two main parties, lest we waste our votes.
The point is that even when we do vote for a 3rd party candidate, it has essentially zero effect, precisely because of the problem you mentioned, and thus, those of us who do vote for 3rd party candidates are truly not responsible for the actions of our government.
Your point does not rebut the GP's point - it supports it.
>>>You voted them in, so the're your responsibility.
No I didn't. I have never voted for Bush, never voted for Obama, and never voted for my current Democrat asshole in Congress (Arlen Spewtrum) Actually I may have voted for him back when I was in college and stupid, but not anytime during the 2000s. Also as I'm sure you're aware, whether I vote D or R makes no difference. They are both Progressives, both pushing for bigger government, both inching us toward neo-feudalism (you're a serf and congress is your master).
I wish I could vote for someone like Ron Paul or Daniel Hannan or Nigel Farage, but these people never appear on my R or D ballot. It's just more of the same: "Let's make government bigger" candidates.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You're against anti-texting laws? Why? The AAA performed studies showing that texting-while-driving causes 2-3 times slower reaction time than drinking-and-driving. If DUI should be banned because it's dangerous, then so too should DWT (driving while texting) because it's much much worse.
I almost got hit by a woman who was talking-while-driving. She blasted right through the red light as if it wasn't there, almost clipping my front end (fortunately I was only going 5 mph and could slow down quickly). These people are stupid. They CAN'T multitask because they're brains aren't smart enough. They should not be allowed to anything else while driving. It should be banned.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
In case you missed it, the US is not 'other countries.' Just as every other country has its own weird fucked-upedness, so too do we.
She reminds me of some of the preachers I see on TV. They spout all kinds of nonsense that doesn't even exist in the Bible. False prophets.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Don't register or host your domain in the U.S. if it's the least bit controversial. It's just too easy for a plaintiff or government agency to seize it. One of the worst examples was a Spanish travel agency that handled trips to Cuba and which was foolish enough to register their domain name in the U.S. See NYTimes article A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears
See http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/2010/02/dont-register-or-host-your-domain-in-us.html for more on this topic.
Theoretically, yes.
Practically, no.
Actually, in a previous career I seized quite a bit of property. The bar to get over, depending on the particular laws in play and the agency you work for, is usually pretty darn low.
Yesterday I watched a woman in front of me run over the curb trying to make a right-turn out of a Wendy's while she was talking on the phone. Couldn't even handle a right-turn...... (and drove a BMW SUV by the way so apparently also more money than brains too).
Actually my point is, if you vote for the status quo, then you are just as much a part of the problem as the drones. Compromising your vote is a sign of surrender, that you gave up. and you have a less than zero effect. You're "Just another brick in the wall". Voting for an alternative won't knock down the building, but at least it's a brick through the window. Like sinking a boat with a hundred lawyers on board, it's a start..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I should add that she had to back up to get off the curb... that's how much curb she ran up. *shakes head*
If you vote for a third party fruitlessly you have wasted your chance to vote for your second choice party, and as a result your last choice party may get in.
Just because Lincoln and his speeches are esteemed does not make them inherently right. Not to mention that he was responsible for overseeing the effective termination of the sovereignty of the individual states, so he would definitely see government as responsible only to the majority, and the minority should suffer any imposition the majority sees fit.
Your concept is not hard, but you see simple does not automatically mean correct.
A democracy is accountable only to the majority of its electorate within the bounds of its constitution. If you would like to demonstrate otherwise, you're going to have to do better than quoting political scripture.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
The point is that even when we do vote for a 3rd party candidate, it has essentially zero effect
In some cases it may even have the opposite effect intended.
If everyone who voted for Nader in 2000 in Florida had voted for Gore (someone who as a Nader voter, they surely agreed with more than Bush), Gore would have won the election.
>>>No, blasting through red lights like they're not there should be banned
Yeah I'll really be comforted to know the woman-on-her-phone got a Red Light ticket, after I'm laying in my coffin. Wouldn't it make more sense to ban texting and DUI *before* I or someone else ends up killed? Yes.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
If you vote for a third party fruitlessly you have wasted your chance to vote for your second choice party, and as a result your last choice party may get in.
and unless you can break the cycle, as each election goes by your country will head further and further away from what you want it to be.
It's for this reason I think everyone should get two votes. One positive, and one negative. Since all the Republicans would vote *against* the Democrats, and vice versa, you'd get a real chance at having a third party in power.
Of course, that would never fly past the current congress to get to a point of Amendment...
Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
No. Third party voting fails because of the plurality voting system. If the winner was required to get over 50% of the votes, then it would be a reasonable strategy. If Instant Runoff were used it would be reasonable. If Condorcet (my favorite) were used, it would be reasonable.
The voting system in the US is specifically designed to ensure that one of two superficially different groups gets elected. I don't know if it was apparent what they were doing in the early days, but it's been evident since before the time of Teddy Roosevelt. (Look up the "Bull Moose Party".) Everybody, including himself, knew that he didn't have much of a chance, but he was enough of a popular hero that he figured he might possibly have enough of one to be worth the effort. (I don't remember the cause he was fighting for...I think it was something other than personal glory, but he got creamed.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Other countries have parliamentary systems where minor parties are able to win a handful of seats in a national election, then hold a majority party hostage to form a coalition government.
In the US, the executive is not answerable to "votes of no confidence" by congress, being (more or less) directly elected for a clearly-defined term of office, so coalitions aren't necessary. We also vote for individual seats instead of parties, and every seat is tied to a geographical region, so unless there's a 3rd-party majority enclave (that has escaped being redistricted out of existence), it is more or less impossible for a third party candidate to hold office at the national level.
So, to review: In parliamentary systems, third parties play a pivotal, undemocratic role in forming governments and determining government policy; while in the US system, lobbyists and assorted strange constituencies in early primary states play a pivotal, undemocratic role in forming governments and determining government policy.
so they seized an asset that costs a whole $10 to replace.
i bet they don't even realize how pointless and stupid it was
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
What's needed is a change of political system. Simply swapping "The Fire Party" for "The Frying-pan Party" at regular intervals does nothing for the quality of government.
Now that we're in the 21st century, we have the technology we need to implement a far more finely graduated democracy than the one we currently have.
In my country (New Zealand) we run a version of the Westminster system but it's still basically a representative democracy (so they say).
What I've proposed is an alteration to that system called Recoverable Proxy.
It still operates on a representative basis where you have an elected member to do your bidding in the halls of government. However, makes it very clear that those representatives are effectively exercising your proxy when they vote on bills before the parliament/Senate/whatever. Recoverable Proxy operates by allowing *you*, the voter, to recover your proxy if and when you choose to, so that the public may effectively veto the excesses of their government when/if it becomes necessary.
99% of the time, the existing government structure and operation will continue as normal (this isn't a government by referendum like the Swiss system). The only time you'll see any significant percentage of the population recovering their proxy and exercising it themselves is when an issue of great public debate is before the house.
What do you think?
Is it time to reinvent the system rather than simply have a couple of dullards play musical chairs every 4 years?