US Government Seizes Torrent Search Engine Domain

Voulnet writes with this excerpt from TorrentFreak: "This morning, visitors to the Torrent-Finder.com site are greeted with an ominous graphic which indicates that ICE has seized the site's domain. 'My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!' the exasperated owner of Torrent-Finder told TorrentFreak this morning. 'I firstly had DNS downtime. While I was contacting GoDaddy, I noticed the DNS had changed. GoDaddy had no idea what was going on and until now they do not understand the situation and they say it was totally from ICANN,' he explained. Aside from the fact that domains are being seized seemingly at will, there is a very serious problem with the action against Torrent-Finder. Not only does the site not host or even link to any torrents whatsoever, it actually only returns searches through embedded iframes which display other sites that are not under the control of the Torrent-Finder owner."

Comments

Slippery Slope continues.

[Tovias]

How long before the government takes control of sites that hosts or links to information that the government just doesn't like or deems "unpatriotic"? What kind of oversight is involved before the government can just take down a site? I'm not pro-piracy or advocating it in any way, but I'm definitely all for due process.

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[Monkeedude1212]

What kind of oversight is involved before the government can just take down a site?

Thats the thing - apparently there isn't any! The site owner didn't know what was going on, and even his web host had to do some investigating to figure it out. If neither of them were adequately informed about whats going on - that suggests some serious inbalance in power. People worried about an Internet Kill Switch? This demonstrates they already effectively have access to such a mechanism.

And given that the site doesn't hosts the files themselves, only links to other sites - NONE of this should have happened. This is no different then me going "Hit Movie Torrent" in Google and clicking on a link that takes me to the sites with Torrents. Why hasn't Google been taken offline? In fact I'm sure most people who want to get into Torrenting go use Google to find the Bittorrent application. Then they use Google to find a torrent site.

It's injustice, they aren't blindly applying law as it should be - they're picking and choosing who they want. And the laws they've posted on the Torrent-finder aren't even relevant! Wilful Copyright infringement: Torrent finder isn't infringing on the copyrights. They are not hosting or distributing them either. Trafficking counterfeit goods - not only is a direct copy of the data not counterfeit but again, they aren't the ones trafficking the data.

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[bhagwad]

Isn't due process a constitutionally guaranteed right in the US?

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[dyfet]

I think they pay them in Ireland, actually, and at a nicely reduced rate, too :)

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[bhagwad]

Doesn't it require due process in order to label a particular act as criminal in the first place? And doesn't that involve the right to defend your act before it's labelled as criminal?

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[Ethidium]

It is, and it's a fair question. Assuming that this is a real seizure and not a hoax, the due process works like this:

0) Somebody allegedly uses property for an illegal purpose. By law, they are deemed to have transferred title to the United States Government by dint of the illegal activity (if in fact the illegal activity can be proved).

1) The government files for a seizure warrant in US District Court. The owner of the property (here, the domain) does not get a say, nor any notice that this is happening.

2) The government seizes the property and provides notice to the owner, if known, and any person who might have a claim on it. For example, if the property is a car with a bank lien, they must notify the owner and the bank.

3a) The government files a complaint for forfeiture in US District Court (or in state court). This is called an "in rem" action--meaning that it's not a lawsuit against an individual, but a suit to determine title to property. The United States claims that it owns the property because of the transfer-by-law that occurred at zero, supra. Anybody who disagrees can stake their claim. The judge determines who gets the stuff.

3b) The government doesn't file anything, and the owner sues the government for a civil rights violation by unlawful taking of property without due process. The suit proceeds as above.

===

The cases determining whether due process has to occur pre-seizure or post-seizure are complicated, and beyond the scope of this author's knowledge or this post.

For reference, I am a lawyer and have posted this explanation based on my legal study, but it should be considered scholarship (information for general knowledge) and not legal advice (information specific to an individual's problems). If you are in need of legal advice, you should consult a qualified lawyer in your jurisdiction.

Re:Slippery Slope continues.

[Rich0]

Based on the wording on the notice, if this was actually done by the government it was done under seizure laws.

Seizure is a legal principle where no human being is accused of a crime. Instead, the government files a complaint against the property itself, and then finds it guilty of crime. The constitution only grants human rights to humans, so the theory is that all those constitutional protections don't apply.

The fact that the property actually belongs to a human being isn't of great concern to the courts, apparently.

Of course, this is nothing more than an end-run around due process. If somebody tried to do this back in the 1780s there would have been lots of tar and feathers involved.

Homeland Security...

[TheLink]

Good to see the US Gov has its priorities right.

I'm sure everyone in the US can sleep easy at night, knowing that Homeland Security is keeping a vigilant eye over torrents and other similar threats to the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

Re:Homeland Security...

[gstoddart]

I'm sure everyone in the US can sleep easy at night, knowing that Homeland Security is keeping a vigilant eye over torrents and other similar threats to the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

Have you missed the parts lately where protection of US copyrights is a matter of national security?

Why do you think that god awful ACTRA treaty is being pushed down everyone else's throats?

Expect this to become commonplace -- anything which can deemed to have a primary function of telling people where to download copyrighted works will be squashed quite thoroughly. I fully expect the RIAA/MPAA to allow the rest of us to use the internet under their terms now.

It's all about Money

[bkmoore]

Unless you've been living behind Jupiter, you probably have figured out that the government is for sale to the highest bidder. You can bet that the RIAA, MPA, etc. have all made their political donations and now are cashing in. Most legislation in America is written by lobbyists anyway. But it's nice that the DHS is keeping us safe not just in the skies, but online as well.

Re:Durr hurr

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

In your analogy, it would be like saying:

"I didn't kill him your honor: all I did was point out who did."

posting a link to other content is not in any way analogous to killing someone. hell, in this case it helped the copyright police FIND the infringers.

to me, this is like taking a Private Investigator to court for "not reporting a crime before it had sufficient evidence to even know what was going on was a crime."

DAMN YOU GEORGE BUSH!!!

[Vinegar Joe]

I can't wait for Obama to be inaugurated!

Re:we need more liberal control

[windcask]

Wake up, man. The rights of the individual are not a partisan issue. Progressives will stand behind you if you want to shit on the Bible or burn the flag, sure, but they'll be the first to sign a bill to keep you from smoking or eating French Fries.

So how does this relate? Neither side really cares about individual rights except when it relates to their talking points or agenda, so don't expect either to be free of the influence of the entertainment industry.

Re:EXIF Info

[metrometro]

Not a lot of Macs at the federal government. And none of them running the latest version of Photoshop. A torrent search engine, on the other hand, may somehow have access to the latest software.