The Companies Who Support Censoring the Internet

RichiH writes "From Techdirt: 'A group of companies sent a letter to to Attorney General Eric Holder and ICE boss John Morton (with cc's to VP Joe Biden, Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano, IP Czar Victoria Espinel, Rep. Lamar Smith, Rep. John Conyers, Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Charles Grassley), supporting the continued seizure of domain names they don't like, as well as the new COICA censorship bill, despite the serious Constitutional questions raised about how such seizures violate due process and free speech principles.' A full list of companies who you might want to avoid buying from is included, as well."

Comments

Wall Street rules

[countertrolling]

Diversified investment portfolios make boycotts virtually worthless.

Looks at list... Oh yeah, we're gonna stop these guys.. Hope and Change, right?

Re:Wall Street rules

[Seumas]

Yeah. Awesome - I'll just make sure that I move out of Oregon so that I'm in on way supporting Nike, Adidas, or Columbia Sportswear (WTF?) through state business breaks of any kind. And discontinue my access to the internet, so I'm not supporting those companies And then I'll be sure not to watch a significant chunk of movies, from the film companies below. Or video games, since about 50% of games seem to come from Activision.

The thing is, I understand the concerns of these companies. I understand that they want to be able to attack forgeries piracy, wherever they may originate (and note, by "piracy", I mean the guys who make and sell copies of digital and other content and sell it for a profit as their own; not some kid in his basement playing an illegitimate copy of a game that he downloaded).

I just don't understand why so many are entertaining the idea - neigh, supporting it - of violating so many rights in such clear and offensive ways. Why not support bringing lawsuits against people who run domains like "CheapNikeKnockoffsRightHere.com" and then sell forgeries for a tenth the cost of the real thing rather than supporting yanking their domains without due process? In fact, yanking the domains should be a lengthy formal process; not a whim.

Also . . . ICE? Immigration? WTF?

Also . . . isn't it great that DHS/Homeland Security is now involved in EVERYTHING? The fate of the entire country is at stake! Code orange must now be raised to terrorism code red, because this guy has a dozen fake Rolexes! Oh noes!

Oh well. I still have netflix, starbucks, minivans, teh baby jebus, and nascar -- and as an American, that's all I need to be content and shut my mouth and look the other way.

Re:Wall Street rules

[countertrolling]

...vote for liberals...

I'll have to conscript one. There are no liberals volunteering to serve. A lot of posers, but nothing realistic. And anybody who actually wants the job is probably unfit. It's better to reign in their authority no matter who we vote for. They have way too much power.

Re:Wall Street rules

[artor3]

Excuse me?

Sorry; firstly, me not enabling your government by voting is my right, in fact, it is one of the rights your system gave me. Secondly, if your system is going to fall over and shit it self like this every time someone doesn't vote just right, I have news for you. The system was broken from the get go.

Fix the system not the people.

See, you're confused. You say you don't want to "enable the government by voting". That's wrong on two counts:

1) The government is just a system. It doesn't need "enabling". It just is.
2) The plutocrats and corrupt politicians that you really have a problem with don't need your vote. They win by default when you don't vote. It is by not voting that you "enable" them.

Be an apathetic coward wallowing in self-pity if you like, you have that right, but don't delude yourself into believing that it isn't that very act that is causing the problem.

Re:Wall Street rules

[mrnobo1024]

People who insist that voting doesn't matter aren't just part of the problem, they're the entirety of the problem. If they all voted, we'd have more than enough votes to toss out anyone who didn't respect the people.

People who realize that voting doesn't matter are a tiny minority of the population. We are outnumbered 100 to 1 by the ignorant masses who buy into the phony conflicts between Democrats and Republicans, and don't even know what the actually important issues are (i.e. the ones where both parties always stand together against the public interest).

Re:Wall Street rules

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Premier Election Solutions, Inc, you insensitive clod!

Re:Wall Street rules

[countertrolling]

It is by not voting that you "enable" them.

Au contraire. Your vote implies your consent to their authority. Refusal to vote means refusal to consent. The government will assert its authority regardless, but not voting is a perfectly legitimate form of resistance.

Re:Wall Street rules

[orphiuchus]

I think a big part of the problem is that actual systemic change isn't the sort of thing that happens without casualties. Every time in history that a society has attempted to redesign itself all at once, on the level that most internet-dwelling political savants want, it has led to either a civil war or mass starvation.

Change isn't free.

The list

[Anonymous Coward]

Nike - Beaverton, OR
Achushnet - Fairhaven, MA
Curb Music Publishing - Nashville, TN
NBC Universal - New York, NY
Viacom - New York, NY
Callaway - Carlsbad, CA
Cleveland Golf - Huntington Beach, CA
Rosetta Stone - Arlington, VA
Activision - Santa Monica, CA
Adidas Group - Portland, OR
Xerox - Norwalk, CT
Hastings Entertainment, Inc. - Amarillo, TX
Fortune Brands - Deerfield, IL
Coty Inc. - New York, NY
EDGE Entertainment Distribution - Streetsboro, OH
Oakley, Inc. - Foothill Ranch, CA
PING - Phoenix, AZ
Louis Vuitton - New York, NY
D'Addario and Company - Farmingdale, NY
Monster Cable Products, Inc. - Brisbane, CA
Tiffany and Co. - New York, NY
Farouk Systems, Inc. - Houston, TX
Beam Global - Deerfield, IL
Chanel USA - New York, NY
True Religion Apparel, Inc. - Vernon, CA
Concord Music Group - Beverly Hills, CA
Village Roadshow Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
National Basketball Association - New York, NY
National Football League - New York, NY
The Collegiate Licensing Company/IMG College - Atlanta, GA
Anderson Merchandisers - Amarillo, TX
Trans World Entertainment Corporation - Albany, NY
Timberland - Stratham, NH
Major League Baseball - New York, NY
Lightening Entertainment/Mainline Releasing - Santa Monica, CA
Sierra Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
Voltage Pictures LLC - Los Angeles, CA
Worldwide Film Entertainment LLC - Westchester, CA
Nu Image, Inc. - Los Angeles, CA
Burberry Limited - New York, NY
Big Machine Records - Nashville, TN
The Little Film Company - Studio City, CA
Columbia Sportswear Company - Portland, OR

Re:The list

[Fishead]

Monster Cable Products, Inc. - Brisbane, CA

LoL, yeah, I could see how Monster Cable's business model could be threatened by free (as in bird) and open communication.

Re:The list

[the_womble]

The bits get stuck if the copper does not point the right way. Low quality cables also cause bits to degrade which means that they will obviously not sound the same as the near perfect bits that have passed though Monster cables.

Nine out of ten Monster customers confirm that good cables sound better than cheap cables.

The other 10% confirm that bits are happier travelling through Monster cables and they are therefore more ethically acceptable.

Please note that if you are reading this over anything other than an audiophile quality ethernet cable you will not be able to understand it properly and will therefore think its all nonsense. Please try a better quality cable to understand properly.

Re:The list

[Seumas]

Are you sure about that?

Viacom == CBS, Comedy Central (Colbert/Daily Show), BET, The CW, MTV, Showtime, many radio stations, last.cm, CNET, download.com, gameFAQs, GameSpot, Metacritic, techrepublic, tv.com, ZDNet, Simon & Schuster, Westinghouse, etc.

NBC Universal == General Electric, Comcast, NBC, USA network, MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo, Weather Channel, AT&T, Hulu, Vivendi, MCA, SyFy, Universal Music, Biography channel, National Geographic channel, A&E, Tivo, many radio/tv stations, etc.

Not to mention the many other subsidiaries of the companies and branches listed above. And that's just two companies. Chances are good that you'll buy something (or many things) in the next year that benefit Nike or Adidas or Activision, but are under brands and subsidiaries that we aren't familiar with.

It is extremely difficult to actually boycott a corporation these days. Hell, if you decided to boycott Proctor & Gamble, you'd probably never be able to buy a single thing for the rest of your life.

Re:The list

[bzipitidoo]

Yes, boycotts are mostly unworkable.

Don't merely deny yourself to deny them. Take your business to the competition. A problem with that is, sometimes there isn't any competition. Lack of competition, and the ongoing efforts to eliminate competition, are the biggest problems capitalism faces.

Lawsuits and court cases are a lot of effort, and may fail. And are reactionary besides. Go on the offensive. Proposing alternative laws may be better. How about a constitutional amendment? A "Free Sharing" amendment, sort of like Free Speech. If it gained traction, would solve a lot of these issues. They'd be scared silly by the prospect of such an amendment actually becoming law. It would shift the debate, and they'd be too busy fighting to hang on to their intellectual monopolies to have the energy to keep up this continual testing of the waters to see how much censorship they can get away with.

Xerox?

[phiz187]

Really Xerox? After all of the legal drama you've gone through, as publishers tried to hold YOU contributorily responsible for copyright infringement committed by your users?!

Re:Xerox?

[lorenlal]

Kudos for picking that one out. I notice that there's very little tech in this list. In fact, the overly large representation from sports-related companies has me wondering what's up with them. I know counterfeit sports apparel is a bit of a pain for them, but I didn't know that it was that bad.

Maybe Xerox is looking at finally taking on Apple and Microsoft over that whole GUI thing?

Re:Xerox?

[wierd_w]

Sports affilate groups (NBA, NFL, MLB, etc..) have much to lose if they lose their licensing monopolies. EG, they can currently charge Comcast/NBC for the "Priviledge" of airing the superbowl, and have sole copyright over the entire "Performance" of *all* games played under their banners, regardless of which agency is doing the filming. Ever paid attention to the small text at the beginning of football games? The text that spells out just how much the NFL really REALLY doesn't like having games recorded, etc?

[sarcasm]A free and open internet would permit game scores, stats, and dare I say it... FAIR USE (as in, the REAL deal) clips of game events to be proliferated without their having their fingers in the pie! I mean, Somebody MIGHT get to see a world record touchdown FOR FREE! [/sarcasm]

This same mentality is also applicable against the people who save up for the Season Pass tickets, get good seats on game day, and decide to bring the camcorder. Their camcorder footage is the property of [NBA/NFL/MLB/etc], and NOT them, and totally illegal as far as same is concerned. The fear that such footage might end up on YouTube, for free, makes their sphincters tighten.

THAT is why they support internet censorship.

D'Addario

[JohnHorton]

Until I read this, I used D'Addario strings on my guitar. Now that I see their name on that list, I will never use them again. Thankfully, I don't make use of any of the products of those other companies. That being said, there is no way to "vote with your wallet" anymore, because the corporations control everything, and shy of living an agrarian life in the middle of nowhere, your money will end up in their hands. Even if people on the whole turned against them, buying only locally made products, etc, the corporations would just lobby to have their way, and get it.

Re:D'Addario

[douglips]

Ernie Ball also went totally Microsoft free after the BSA screwed them for $100,000:
http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html

Re:D'Addario

[scdeimos]

Nike can jam it, AFAIC, but if you read the comments attached to TFA you might have seen this comment from Jim D'Addario...

Jim D'Addario, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 6:10am

You really should visit and talk to some companies that are living this experience. There is no way to file a legal law suit in every instance someone is stealing my D'Addario Strings trademark. We are family owned business in the USA with sales of $150 million. Sounds big, and rich and all that!!! However last year we spent $750,000 on legal battles and got nowhere. We would be bankrupt trying to protect the 1000 jobs that we provide here in the USA. We are not General Motors, IBM or NIke. The scale is not there.

If we were allowed legitimate access to the Chinese market and the Chinese were not counterfeiting our product we would be able to create 200 to 500 more jobs in the USA.

Don't paint everyone with a broad stroke of the brush. Telling the companies on the list to work harder is an insult. We work as hard as we possibly can already (its 5:30 AM where i am right now and dont stop working until 6:30 PM.

I have personally visited stores in four Chinese cities to see 7 out of 10 sets of my brand of strings are fake. The packaging is perfect, right down to the American flat and the words "Printed and Made in USA". The strings are shxt.

I wonder how that would make you feel if you started a brand name from nothing in 1974 and built it to the largest in the world only to watch people completely rip it off.

So your suggestioin to me is to work harder and sue everyone? I may as well close up or cash out and watch the 1000 jobs evaporate. Or better, maybe i should move the factory to China and destroy another 1000 US jobs?

Go on Alibaba.com and witness the hundreds of thousands of fake product listings. There is nothing on the site that is real or legitimate. At some point the government has to take some kind of police action. This is not just a civil matter, there are criminal (grand larceny) implications here.

I agree there should be due process before a site is shut down. I dont know what that process should be, but when threre is clear evidence submitted to a government agency that a site is selling fake merchandise the government should have some authority to put a URL on hold until they can defend themselves. Let the theives absorb the burden of defending themselves, don't expect the legitimate folks to foot the bill.

How is possible for the public to ask the legitimate manufacturers to bear the role of the government and police every instance of fraud with a law suit? It would be tens of millions of $$$ a year.

Learn more before developing such strong views and 'black listing' good people.

Jim D'Addario - CEO D'Addario and Company

Re:D'Addario

[cbope]

I was right there with Jim until he basically said the accused parties are guilty until proven innocent. Sounds kinda bass-ackwards to how I was raised...

Personally, I don't have a problem with D'Addario's position, I use only GHS strings on my guitar :P

The new aristocracy

[Datamonstar]

They won't stop until there is a class of people who can do whatever they please, and another class of low-lifes (us) that must be subject to their power, for their their (our) own good.

Text of the Letter

[cappp]

For those interested in reading the letter itself

We run companies large and small that represent diverse aspects of America's intellectual property community. While our employees live in different regions of the country, and work to produce a variety of goods and services, they have several important things in common - they work hard, they are committed to quality and innovation and they welcome competition. However, allowing others to unfairly compete by stealing the ideas, innovations and intellectual property rights created by our employees cannot be tolerated. This theft diminishes our ability to keep and create jobs, and makes it far more difficult to attract the capital needed to invest in new products and services. In order to protect our free enterprise system, and the standard of living it has contributed to our nation, it is critical that we multiply our efforts to identify and punish the criminals who steal what we create and produce.

Thus, we appreciate the effort and energy behind Operation in Our Sites. The actions announced on November 29, 2010 once again demonstrated that, just as in the physical world, prosecutors and courts can judiciously assess evidence and distinguish between legitimate businesses and criminal enterprises that flout the law and profit from the ingenuity of others. We believe that the online marketplace can only work for consumers and creators if there is respect for property rights and the rule of law - and urge you to continue to act against the kinds of domains that you have targeted. Unfortunately, there are far too many sites stealing from our businesses but we believe that your efforts will drive consumers to the many legitimate online ventures and services that we have worked hard to foster and support.

We encourage you to work with your colleagues in the Administration and the Congress toward enactment of the principles central to S. 3804 - the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. The legislation crafted by Senators Leahy and Hatch was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and will undoubtedly be reintroduced this congress. The proposal expounds upon the law enforcement techniques at the heart of "Operation In Our Sites" and will ensure that rogue sites cannot evade U.S. jurisdiction by escaping offshore to foreign-based registrars, registries and country codes in order to peddle stolen American intellectual property back into the U.S. market. In addition, the Leahy-Hatch proposal provides an entirely new level of protection for U.S. rights holders by establishing the legal framework necessary to disrupt the business models of the illicit, offshore sites by starving them of the financing, advertising and access to consumers upon which they depend. The carefully balanced measure would allow American law enforcement officials and U.S. courts to deny thieves the ability to use the Internet to enter the U.S. market and undermine our businesses while reaping financial gain for themselves.

We hope that you will continue dedicating resources to Operation in Our Sites and work toward the Obama Administration's endorsement of the Leahy-Hatch legislation.

Re:Odd List

[trentblase]

What an odd group. Wonder what the common thread is? How is it that these companies cmae together to sign this letter?

It looks like a list of companies that have a lot tied up in their trademarks. Monster Cable is always suing other people over the Monster name. Xerox has always been on the verge of having it's name genericized. Fashion houses have almost their entire value in their brands. At least the tech companies can fall back on their patents to defend their turf.

Add: National Association of Realtors

[Larisa]

They should add the National Association of Realtors to that list. They may not have signed the letter in fact, but they apparently support censorship in principle and action. The 800-lb legal gorilla of the NAR jumped on my own back, only yesterday. I set up a site for an audio drama I recently produced -- a fun little ghost-story for geeks, which happens to lampoon the Realtors and high-tech CEOs of Silicon Valley, whom we all love to hate. My URL corresponds to the Title of that fictional story, "The Realtor and the CEO" (http://www.realtorandceo.com). They decided that they did not like my using the word realtor as part of a literary title, and are now trying to coerce me into giving up the URL, the Title of the audio drama, and any reference to realtors in the story -- which happens to require eliminating or completely rewriting a main character. Seems First Amendment rights mean nothing, if you do not have a $100,000 war chest.

Re:Add: National Association of Realtors

[CycleMan]

If you made one change to "real estate agent" instead of Realtor(®), they wouldn't have an issue. Per the NAR website, "Only real estate licensees who are members of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® are properly called REALTORS." It's like Xerox (versus photocopy) and Kleenex (versus facial tissue). No, I'm not in the real estate business, and no, I don't really appreciate the difference that membership in this organization provides. But it's their registered mark, and they are required to work to protect it if they want to keep it that way. There is no National Association of CEOs that created the term "CEO," so you're safe on that front. Since I don't know the full facts of your specific situation, I can't address the merits of the NAR's case, but again, changing to the term "real estate agent" would probably get them off your back pretty quickly.

Re:Register domains elsewhere?

[GeorgeS]

This is already being done. The Cesidian Root has been providing an alternative global DNS for years.
They even still resolve wikileaks.org

Full Disclosure: I run 2 of the root servers/resolvers for the Cesidian Root and fully support IPv6 too :)