US Gov't Seizes 130+ More Domains In Crackdown

An anonymous reader writes "The DoJ and ICE have once again taken up the banner of anti-piracy and anti-counterfeiting by seizing over 130 domains allegedly involved in those activities. TorrentFreak points out that this newest digital raid happened just before 'Cyber Monday,' a time when consumers are encouraged to do a bunch of online shopping. From the article: 'Compared to previous seizure rounds, there are also some notable differences to report. This time the action appears to be limited to sites that directly charge visitors for their services. Most of the domains are linked to the selling of counterfeit clothing (e.g. 17nflshop.com), and at least one (autocd.com) sold pirated auto software. Last year several sites were taken down because they allowed their users to access free music and movie downloads, and these were followed by several streaming services a few months later. No similar sites have been reported in the current round.'"

Comments

Difference between US and China

[CmdrPony]

In my opinion this is much worse than Chinese firewall. At least China keeps it to themselves and within their own laws. US just seizes what it wants, even if the sites would be lawful in other countries.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit is this much worse. The US does it because people are selling things they shouldn't be selling. China does it to crush free speech. There isn't even a comparison here - China is FAR worse.

Re:Difference between US and China

[CmdrPony]

It's a matter of opinion. US and Chinese cultures are different. Many Chinese people agree that government should restrict some hate speech. Hell, even US does - just try yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. It's a slippery slope, and can't be justified just because US people think it's ok in this case.

Re:Difference between US and China

[poity]

This is at the DNS level, so if the DNS registers are US companies then it's conducted within US law. I'm pretty sure if the hosts for those sites are not located in the US, they're mostly likely still alive and accessible via their ip addresses. At worst, we can guess US is the same as China in the area of censoring ip infringement. As for overall difference between the two countries, Slashdot likes to talk about the fallacy of moral equivalence when defending something they like which the general public doesn't, so perhaps it's also a fallacy to make the same mistake here.

Re:Difference between US and China

[beltsbear]

Like apple power chargers that cost one third of what Apple sells them for. Yea, they should not be selling those!

Re:Difference between US and China

[betterunixthanunix]

China does it to keep the party in power. The US does it to keep the copyright/trademark industries in power. Here is how vast the difference is:

sed -e 's/communist party/intellectual property industries/g'

Re:Difference between US and China

[poity]

Many Chinese people agree that government should restrict some hate speech.

..and you can find just as many supporters of that in the US, but if popular support doesn't legitimize it here then why should it in China? If we accept your premise that free speech falls under the rule of public sentiment, then this legitimizes these domain seizures even more, since it is the public votes the legislators who enact these ip protection laws.

Re:Difference between US and China

[CmdrPony]

I'm just saying that every country should keep it to themselves. If US government wants to block those domains, feel free to make your own firewall. But as it is now, US is deciding for the whole world. Regardless if other countries want it or not.

Re:Difference between US and China

[arkenian]

I'm just saying that every country should keep it to themselves. If US government wants to block those domains, feel free to make your own firewall. But as it is now, US is deciding for the whole world. Regardless if other countries want it or not.

So once upon a time, I would've agreed. But these days? If you don't want to be subject to a country's laws, then don't register your domain in their country. Every country in the world has its own domain registry, pretty much. Yes, its true, if you have a .CH domain or something, people are likely to think your stuff is fake and not buy it. But why shouldn't the US prevent you from selling stuff to US persons in a US domain, which means that you're, by definition, doing business with a US company. Its always been the law that if you use US assetts to commit something considered a crime in the US, those assets get seized/frozen. If this was going after the 'free' sites, that'd be one thing, but this is pretty much within the narrower interpretations, and i think its perfectly fine.

Re:Difference between US and China

[WCMI92]

That is the whole purpose of the Constitution. There are certain things that even the vote of a majority is not allowed to do, such as deprive others of their right to express ideas, even if the majority find them repugnant.

If only they'd had the foresight to extend it to disallowing the majority to vote to pilfer the property of others, but I digress...

Re:Difference between US and China

[paxcoder]

You sir, just crapped a load.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

But why shouldn't the US prevent you from selling stuff to US persons in a US domain, which means that you're, by definition, doing business with a US company.

Because .com and .net are not simply US domains just used by companies doing business in the US.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Luckyo]

Because they are a different country with different culture and values.

This bubble in which some people live in never ceases to amaze me. The sheer foolishness of belief that their values are by far the best for everyone, and shared by everyone is beyond stupid and turning on your TV to watch the news debunks it time and time again. Yet they believe...

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the whole purpose of the Constitution. There are certain things that even the vote of a majority is not allowed to do, such as deprive others of their right to express ideas, even if the majority find them repugnant.

Not that people don't try anyway.

Re:Difference between US and China

[poetmatt]

"shouldn't be selling"? Says who?

the most important part of your completely bullshit claim, is where is the court hearing? Where is the proof?

innocent until proven guilty is a key cornerstone of our law, even as generally dismantled as it exists.

So until this goes to court, there's no proof they've done anything wrong or shouldn't have done, etc. It is a first amendment violation of prior restraint, however.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

When will they be taken to court to defend themselves?

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

.com and .net ARE simply US domains. Even when a non-US entity holds the lease, it is a US domain.

Any non-US entities that run websites legal in other parts of the world can register domains operated by those parts of the world.

Re:Difference between US and China

[migla]

Maybe.

What about those in the culture that don't agree the oppression of them is ok? How many people would you have to be to legitimately claim that you should not be oppressed?

Re:Difference between US and China

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

But why shouldn't the US prevent you from selling stuff to US persons in a US domain, which means that you're, by definition, doing business with a US company. Its always been the law that if you use US assetts to commit something considered a crime in the US, those assets get seized/frozen.

Hey American--There are other people on the internet. And sometimes, we don't even care if you're on the internet or not.

In fact the rest of the internet can quite happily function if the US decides to seal itself up behind a firewall like the Chinese. But we can't function if the US decides to unilaterally interfere with our business on the internet in its own interest. If that happens, then current US custodianship of the internet/DNS will be de-legitimised and ended before too long.

This doesn't have to happen, but it will if the US continues to regard its own domestic laws as superior to those others countries even within the jurisdiction of those countries. The the US cannot recognise basic principles of jurisdiction, then the international system of internet controls cannot continue be based there.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another brainless turd heard from... why don't you go and spend the next 5 years of your life developing a software application, then have someone make millions on it by selling illegal copies of it. Bey you will be running to the DoJ and ICE asking for help then...

Re:Difference between US and China

[The MESMERIC]

.ch is switzerland.

.cn is china.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because .com and .net are not simply US domains just used by companies doing business in the US."

Actually that's not true. Both originated AND are fully administered within the US. Yes, we allow other countries to register names in those domains, but they are very much US domains. They were invented here, started out as 100% US companies and organizations, and are administered fully within the United States.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Luckyo]

What of those white plantation owners who didn't agree with abolishing of slavery? Religious leaders that didn't agree with people's right not to belong to their religion?

In general, our culture is based on maintaining a certain level of balance between all members. One of the biggest negative changes to hit our daily lives this century have been because some have acted to extract a nice extra bit profit out of the system at the cost of the system itself. We still haven't figured out how to get out of that one.

And I was talking about banking if you were wondering. Though you could easily apply the same reasoning to modern copyright.

Re:Difference between US and China

[arkenian]

But why shouldn't the US prevent you from selling stuff to US persons in a US domain, which means that you're, by definition, doing business with a US company. Its always been the law that if you use US assetts to commit something considered a crime in the US, those assets get seized/frozen.

Hey American--There are other people on the internet. And sometimes, we don't even care if you're on the internet or not.

In fact the rest of the internet can quite happily function if the US decides to seal itself up behind a firewall like the Chinese. But we can't function if the US decides to unilaterally interfere with our business on the internet in its own interest. If that happens, then current US custodianship of the internet/DNS will be de-legitimised and ended before too long.

This doesn't have to happen, but it will if the US continues to regard its own domestic laws as superior to those others countries even within the jurisdiction of those countries. The the US cannot recognise basic principles of jurisdiction, then the international system of internet controls cannot continue be based there.

so that was kind of my point. The US only retains certain domains, and other countries have domains that they control. This isn't the 90s anymore, where the US controls all domain registration. Not even close. But lets set all that aside.... Someone is committing fraud on the internet (bearing in mind that this time we're not talking about piracy, but people selling fake goods as 'real'), what do you think should be done?

Re:Difference between US and China

[MacGyver2210]

It's not like the US is taking down foreign sites. They are taking down sites hosted in the US, which are therefore covered under US anti-piracy laws.

It sucks (I believe everything digital should be free) but it's how the government works these days. No regard for due process - just slam the door wherever they see fit.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

Selling? How is it over there in looney fantasy land, where people actually believe you can "sell" data. Because here in the real world, file sharing has nothing to do with "selling" anything at all, and you don't "buy" software anyway.
(You buy a "license", which is a contract that if you get a copy of that information, you won't pass it on. Even though it is physically impossible for them to verify when you do it anyway, unless there is a chip in everyone's head for total surveillance. And so the contract is nonsense, and its only purpose is that they want to make more money without doing any more work [Remember: Making software is a service. That service itself deserves a one-time fixed-amount payment. Nothing more.], essentially defrauding you. But go on and protect your own worst enemies, idiot.)

Re:Difference between US and China

[0123456]

.com and .net ARE simply US domains.

No, they're not. The .us domain IS the US domain. The .com/.net/.org/.edu are international domains.

Or are you suggesting that a multinational corporation should have to register a different domain in every country where they operate? If I want to go go IBM's main web site, which country should I pick?

If they WERE simply US domains, they would require a US address to register them.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

"Fire" is not hate speech.

The US does allow some restrictions on speech, but is generally quite permissive--and is most permissive when it comes to political speech, because it views is as the cornerstone of our democracy, where the solution to untruthful speech is truthful speech. (Empirically this is not the effective solution, but the idea that it is sounds very good and anything overturning it would have a massive chilling effect on free speech, so they don't overturn it.)

China does not have this problem because it lacks a democracy.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

.com only is international, .com.us is US-only, isn't that obvious?

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater isnt hate speech dipwad.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Maybe.

What about those in the culture that don't agree the oppression of them is ok? How many people would you have to be to legitimately claim that you should not be oppressed?

Human rights, one person.

International Law other than human rights law, a large enough area--there was a case where Quebec sued for their right to secede, the Canadian Supreme Court, applying international law principles, said that basically they had the right to if their claim were legitimate, but that they didn't have the right to yet because they hadn't tried to work out their differences like rational human beings.

Kinda reminds me, incidentally, of a more polite version of George III's response to the American Declaration of Independence.

Re:Difference between US and China

[jroysdon]

Newsflash, most (all?) of the gTLDs are run by US countries. Therefore they are under US jurisdiction.

Re:Difference between US and China

[msobkow]

True, but international domains are subject to international law. And when the products being sold through the website are things like NFL jersey rip-offs, it's pretty clear that the owner of the domain is hoping to con US citizens who would be interested in those products, and that they're doing so for profit.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

But without due process, how can you ensure it won't be abused? None of these websites was shut down by a court order. They did not have a trial. The government is establishing precedent for the ability to remove websites it deems undesirable.

Re:Difference between US and China

[ScrewMaster]

since it is the public votes the legislators who enact these ip protection laws.

I might agree if said legislators were obeying the will of the people. I think that the very evident, widescale reaction against SOPA and Protect-IP indicates that our elected officials are doing the exact opposite (in spite of content industry rhetoric.) Our leaders are doing what a few large copyright holders want them to, and if a bunch of us get hurt in the process ... well, that's just too bad. So don't you dare blame the American public for this: when we're well-informed as to consequences (as is happening with SOPA) we object vehemently and take what steps the law permits. Now, if you want to state that our government is corrupt and suffering undue corporate influence ... there I will agree.

Re:Difference between US and China

[ScrewMaster]

.ch is switzerland.

.cn is china.

Yes, but where is the root server that is handling primary request for those TLDs?

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

I am against SOAP and IP-SEC too !

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really want to go there? And have every country to run their own gTLD, probably even ending up with different .com and .net registers? That would be really nice. When going to the same URI in different countries would land you on different sites. Which would basically obsolete the DNS system and would require movement to something new alltogether.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Stalks]

.com .net .org .edu etc. are called gTLD for a reason. They are not country specific, and whilst the US currently hold the keys for these domains they can exploit the privilege, dangerously pushing for fragmented DNS, or an under-ground system out of their control.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

"US countries"??? Huh?

Re:Difference between US and China

[pehrs]

Newsflash, most (all?) of the gTLDs are run by US countries. Therefore they are under US jurisdiction.

I know that corporations have a rather high standing in the US society, but declaring them countries I think is taking things a little too far. Can't we settle for just declaring them citizens?

Re:Difference between US and China

[jamesh]

China does it to keep the party in power. The US does it to keep the copyright/trademark industries in power. Here is how vast the difference is:

sed -e 's/communist party/intellectual property industries/g'

Somewhere along the way it seems you got lost in the difference between copyright in terms of "stealing media" and the concept of "stealing ideas".

1. If I spend millions making a movie and I don't make any money because everyone just takes a copy of it then the world is a worse place for it - I won't make any more movies (this presumes I was good at making movies in the first place, but you get the idea).

2. It I spend millions developing an idea and I don't make any money because everyone just copies it then the world is a worse place for it - I won't bother investing in R&D developing any more ideas.

3. If I start up a company coming up with a whole load of stupid patents, and also buy stupid patents from other companies, and then use those patents to stifle innovation then the world is a worse place for it - nobody else will bother doing anything new because they'll just get sued.

IP and copyright laws are a _good thing_ in principle, except that they allow the last thing to happen, so in their current implementation they are broken and need to be fixed, but trying to pretend that companies attempting to prevent the unlawful copying of their movies is anything to do with the last two points is wrong, and dumb.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

You're officially a fag.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

They are taking down sites hosted in the US, which are therefore covered under US anti-piracy laws.

Yet are oddly not covered by the Fourth Amendment.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Dan541]

Who are you to declare what someone should or shouldn't sell?

Re:Difference between US and China

[Dan541]

These are .com not .us that are being seized.

17NflShop.com appears to be using a Chinese registrar.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Runaway1956]

Life must be so simple for someone like you. Everything is black and white, cut and dried. The US only goes after criminals, and China only persecutes their peace loving people who want to practice freedom of speech.

So many of the rest of us have to wrestle with all the many shades of gray, in between your black and white absolutes.

Meanwhile - WTF do fake clothes and copyright infringement have to do with "Homeland Security"? Sorry, I realize it's an idiot question. The "Security" implied is for the intellectual elite and the filthy rich. No security is implied for the common man.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Rich0]

The thing that concerns me most here is that the domains are being siezed without a trial.

If there were a trial and a jury awarded the domains to the RIAA or whatever, I could at least see the due process in that. However, these are being handled as administrative matters where people are being deprived of property without a trial. My feeling is that a jury should be required to issue a verdict before ANY kind of government seizure. I can see seizing evidence with a warrant temporarily, but temporarily has to mean for a SHORT period of time - not for years. In fact, when things like computers are seized they should just duplicate the drives and return the originals within a week.

Re:Difference between US and China

[betterunixthanunix]

trying to pretend that companies attempting to prevent the unlawful copying of their movies is anything to do with the last two points is wrong, and dumb

Good thing I was trying to pretend that the US government was seizing domain names in the name of protecting those companies "intellectual property rights." We are not talking about companies suing people for violations, we are talking about a government action which was not prompted by a court procedure and which undermined the free and open nature of the Internet. If these companies were suing the counterfeiters in court, or suing people or importing infringing goods, you would have a point.

Re:Difference between US and China

[shutdown -p now]

True, but international domains are subject to international law.

Which exact international law was used to justify taking down of those domains? Last I checked, they were all taken down by order of U.S. courts citing U.S. laws.

Re:Difference between US and China

[shutdown -p now]

It's not like the US is taking down foreign sites. They are taking down sites hosted in the US, which are therefore covered under US anti-piracy laws.

The sites are not hosted in U.S. - they just happened to have a .com domain name, which is defined as "international", but DNS hosting for which is located in U.S. A lot of people are rightly wary of the notion that U.S. has the sole jurisdiction over something that is supposed to be an international shared resource.

Re:Difference between US and China

[pgpalmer]

If you don't want to be subject to a country's laws, then don't register your domain in their country. Every country in the world has its own domain registry, pretty much.

Tried that. Want a .com.au, .net.au, or a .org.au address? You need to register for something an Australian Business Number. Want a .com, .net, or .org address? Just select it and proceed to the payment page.

Re:Difference between US and China

[AmiMoJo]

This is why the US can no longer to be trusted to run the international TLDs and DNS any more.

Re:Difference between US and China

[jago25_98]

"Respecting borders is more important than justice"
^ the view that is prevalent outside the USA and the reason why the USA is despised regardless of whether it is the best way of doing things or not.

Is it worth it?

It can be hard to think that a neighbour is doing bad things but what is the price of going into their border to fix it? If this was weighed up properly then we could be making an impact in some terrorist activities but in a optimised way. No point going into Afghanistan if it's only going to annoy the rest of the Arab world right? It's especially important to do this because otherwise Israel can use the USA as a pawn.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Anonymous Coward]

"I believe everything digital should be free"

Well that's just stupid.

"No regard for due process - just slam the door wherever they see fit."

Really? Please point out, with specific details, how these seizures lack due process? I assume you've read the actual forfeiture laws and understand their policies, right?

Re:Difference between US and China

[Kalriath]

Actually, that's not true. They are very much NOT US domains, as "GTLD" stands for "Global Top Level Domain", which .com, .net, and .org are. Verisign currently runs them, but ICANN could contract it to Nominet (UK) if they felt so inclined.

Re:Difference between US and China

[Kalriath]

I dunno, I'm pretty sure Bank of America reckons they have Sovereign Immunity...

Re:Difference between US and China

[Kalriath]

Could be anywhere. The root zone (.) is Anycast from DNS servers located all over the globe, including even in China.

Re:Difference between US and China

[rhalstead]

Looks to me as if there are a lot more domains missing than on the list. Getting the ones selling counterfeit is one thing, but they apparently don't dare about "collateral damage". Many of the regulatory agencies work that way.

Re:Difference between US and China

[TheTurtlesMoves]

So then what about the media blackouts before clearing out the wall street protesters? Hell what about just clearing out the protesters?

Less US control

[Garybaldy]

This is why other governments are less interested in the US controlling most of the net. Before they were willing to let us have most of the control due to our hands off approach. With the seizing of domains some not even in the us who have broken no laws in their own country.

Re:Less US control

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an easy solution, don't register as a .com. Want to sell illegal stuff, the a .ru TLD where the US has no power (at least not without the Russian government's help).

Re:Less US control

[CmdrPony]

ICANN is still US-based, and they ultimately have power over it. It would be best for everyone if the things ICANN handles would be moved under neutral party, like UN.

Re:Less US control

[ScentCone]

It would be best for everyone if the things ICANN handles would be moved under neutral party, like UN

That's a very funny joke you just made there.

Re:Less US control

[Anonymous Coward]

The only control ICANN could exercise of over second level domains within .ru (or any other cTLD) is to remove it from the root name servers entirely, and that ain't ever going to happen.

Re:Less US control

[Luckyo]

Are you suggesting that UN is LESS neutral then USA, or are you laughing at your attempt to strawman the argument by pretending he said "neutral" in absolute terms?

Re:Less US control

[Anonymous Coward]

Being neutral means being in absolute agreement with US policy, and preferably the ideology of the country's founding fathers.

(At least that is what it seems to mean to many Americans.)

Re:Less US control

[ScentCone]

Are you suggesting that UN is LESS neutral then USA

No, I'm saying that people who put countries like Iran in charge of UN commissions on human rights have no business dealing with freedom of speech issues like domain management. Of course you know that.

Re:Less US control

[DinDaddy]

Actually, it would be best if the things ICANN handles would be moved under a neutral party that was absolutely nothing like the U.N.

Re:Less US control

[Luckyo]

Ah, you mean like those that put USA, Russia, GB, France and China as permanent members on security council?

Funnily, the list pretty much sums up everyone in the world who creates major conflicts in one way or another. So it would seem that Iran is indeed very fit for human rights council.

So perhaps it's quite neutral, and your world view is massively skewed by the bubble you're living in?

Re:Less US control

[Anonymous Coward]

So perhaps it's quite neutral, and your world view is massively skewed by the bubble you're living in?

Uh, no. You obviously just provided evidence in support of his point. Two decidedly non-neutral acts do not a neutral organization make; they don't somehow cancel each other out. It just shows that the organization is even less neutral than we knew. Good job.

Re:Less US control

[Anonymous Coward]

And you don't think that maybe there's a reason those countries are on the security council?
Oh, say... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#Five_nuclear-weapon_states_under_the_NPT ?

As for the "creates major conflicts in one way or another" statement, you realize this is a self-evident fact, no? Given that the countries also appear here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#SIPRI_Yearbook_2011 ), who else do you think is going be involved in major conflicts? The countries who don't have huge militaries? How's that AU mission to Somalia working out? How's stopping the conflicts in Darfur or the DRC going?

Gripe all you want about the allocation of economic resources, but don't act shocked (shocked!) that the countries that spend the most on guns are the the ones involved when someone needs a gun. Some would call the money they spent a demonstration of interest in security.

Re:Less US control

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the reason they're on the council. Because they can do whatever the f*ck they want anyway, so they might as well have a say on the security council. That way, they're at least discussing it.

Re:Less US control

[Luckyo]

Bingo. We have a winner. How is this different with Iran and human rights?

P.S. Funny how everyone answering this one is AC :D.

Re:Less US control

[deesine]

So two wrongs make one right. Got it.

Re:Less US control

[Luckyo]

Applying concept of "right" and "wrong" to world politics and human relationships?

Are you really this ignorant of reality, or just plain brainwashed?

Re:Less US control

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize you can do more by keeping Iran at the table and talk about human rights then to push them away and have a circle jerk pretending other countries dont violate human rights. MOST western countries violate human rights just as bad.

But hey, talking is overrated when you can polarize the debate and throw a bomb on them.

Re:Less US control

[ScentCone]

MOST western countries violate human rights just as bad [as Iran]

Citation, please.

Iran's government policies include criminal enforcement of beard length, and the banning of words like "pizza" (legally, you must refer to them as "elastic loaves" in order to not be prosecuted by the religious dictatorship). It would be interesting to see your food-name-banning references and beard-length-police equivalents in "most" western countries. To say nothing of routinely gunning down people having protests. If "most of the west" were anything like Iran, there would be thousands dead in mass graves just from the whole "occupy" party-fest that's being held. Of course, you know that.

Re:Less US control

[Xest]

"Iran's government policies include criminal enforcement of beard length, and the banning of words like "pizza" (legally, you must refer to them as "elastic loaves" in order to not be prosecuted by the religious dictatorship). It would be interesting to see your food-name-banning references and beard-length-police equivalents in "most" western countries."

Yeah, law enforcement in the US is much more sane, I mean, they just allow civil cases where sharing a few files on Kazaa can leave you destitute and bankrupt with a multi-million dollar fine. It's far more sane!

"To say nothing of routinely gunning down people having protests. If "most of the west" were anything like Iran, there would be thousands dead in mass graves just from the whole "occupy" party-fest that's being held. Of course, you know that."

Yeah, America just performs extraordinary rendition kidnapping foreign citizens from foreign states only to torture them and then hold them without trial under constant civilians and restrictions on their ability to exercise in roasting hot cells at Guantanamo bay. That's between extrajudicial assassinations of foreign nationals inside foreign countries, and pepper spraying innocent protesters in the face at point blank range too of course. Also it's not like the Ohio national guard have ever gunned down innocent protesters at Kent State University either is it.

I don't think you understand what neutral means.

Re:Less US control

[ScentCone]

where sharing a few files ...

Right. A country whose prosperity, historically, and even more now that it does less actual manufacturing, is hugely dependent on intellectual property does indeed not favor people who rip things off. The best solution there is to not rip things off.

then hold them without trial

Yes, unfortunately the Obama administration really did screw that up. But things are getting straightened out so that enemy combatants, terrorists, and the like who fit into the awkward space between domestic arrests and uniformed soldiers in combat elsewhere can go back to being tried in a military venue. In the meantime, your assertions about conditions in Guantanamo are, of course, made-up BS, and you know it. And endless parade of journalists, Red Cross people, and the like disagree with you, having been there themselves.

extrajudicial assassinations of foreign nationals inside foreign countries

Who cares where they are? If they're in the middle of plotting, executing, or supporting efforts to kill us, and the country in which they're hiding has no will or ability to do anything about it, it's exactly the right thing to do.

pepper spraying innocent protesters in the face at point blank range

Ah, I see. So when a campus cop goes ove the top dealing with people blocking the street, that's a sure sign of actual, nation-wide policy, right? Not to be confused, of course, with using machine guns on crowds, and sending snipers out to shoot at protesters day after day as a matter of centrally directed government policy, right? Kent State? Whose policy do you believe that to have been, following what sort of chain of command, under what circumstances? Are you capable of actually comparing that event with the sustained mass murders by governments in the middle east? Or of even one weekend's multiple, city-wide, actual-standing-orders killings during protests in Iran?

I don't think you understand what neutral means.

And you (deliberately, of course) are pretending to have absolutely no perspective or grip on the facts so that you can score lame, junior-high-school-quality rhetorical points that, of course, stand up to no examination whatsoever in this context.

Re:Less US control

[Xest]

"The best solution there is to not rip things off."

Yes, and if people do copy a few dollars worth of music rather than buying it it's obviously worth making them lose everything over.

"Yes, unfortunately the Obama administration really did screw that up."

Ah, you're a Republican, that explains a lot. You do realise that it was Bush who put them all their in the first place and held them without trial for the first few years before Obama took over and continued the fuckup don't you?

"But things are getting straightened out so that enemy combatants, terrorists, and the like who fit into the awkward space between domestic arrests and uniformed soldiers in combat elsewhere can go back to being tried in a military venue."

So which category do you put the innocent ones into who haven't ever been charged with anything and for which no evidence of them ever being wrongdoers go into? are they the ones you say "the like"?

"In the meantime, your assertions about conditions in Guantanamo are, of course, made-up BS, and you know it."

Really? Which ones? Are you telling me Cuba doesn't actually reach extremely high temperatures? are you suggesting the people at Guantanamo are allowed to walk pretty freely around the prison? That doesn't stack up to even US provided film of the place.

"And endless parade of journalists, Red Cross people, and the like disagree with you, having been there themselves."

Well, no actually:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3179858.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30gitmo.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/07/cia-medics-guantanamo-torture-red-cross

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6526589.stm

Still, nice try at outright making things up to cover the fact that once again you actually don't have a clue about the topic at hand.

"Who cares where they are? If they're in the middle of plotting, executing, or supporting efforts to kill us, and the country in which they're hiding has no will or ability to do anything about it, it's exactly the right thing to do."

So what you're saying is that al Qaeda was justified with 9/11? they were after all attacking a country that had for some time been plotting it's downfall. Similarly, I assume you'd be okay with an Iranian nuke hitting Washington for the same reason? Or is this another one of those issues surrounding your misunderstanding of "neutral" as in "It's fair if the US does it, but no one else".

"Ah, I see. So when a campus cop goes ove the top dealing with people blocking the street, that's a sure sign of actual, nation-wide policy, right?"

I think you need to stop watching Fox news. You seem to genuinely believe that it's okay if beatings/abuse/killings by people in positions of authority happen all over the US regularly as long as their superiors can deny responsibility, whilst if the Iranian government denies responsibility for some of the actions of the republican guard, it's different? Again, you really don't get this neutral thing do you?

Look, if I'm honest, I'm not really disagreeing with you that the Iranian leadership is pretty awful, I'm being difficult to make the point to you that it's not as simple as you think. I'm making the point that it's hard to criticise Iran on the human rights board when the US does have a far far less than perfect track record on it. By letting Iran onto the board, to call out the US on it's abuses it keeps Western governments in check - the last thing they want is to be embarassed over fuckups in their own country and get called out on it by someone as hypocritical as Iran, but without Iran being put in this position it would just mean countries like the US could continue with their abuses uncontested. A bit of international em

Like the internet

[GeneralTurgidson]

Piracy routes around it. I'm guessing ICE are the guys who accidentally deleted a bunch of SRV records at work and were promptly fired. Who knew they could find a job with those skills.

Re:Like the internet

[arth1]

I'm guessing ICE are the guys who accidentally deleted a bunch of SRV records at work and were promptly fired.

Firing people over a single accident?
Had you said incompetence, I might have nodded, but accident?
Restoring the last zones doesn't take long.

Firing the one who gave people a bigger gun than they could handle, and the incompetent sysadmin who made it easy to accidentally delete SRV records would, IMNSHO, be more appropriate.

Re:Like the internet

[spidr_mnky]

As someone who fucked up at work yesterday (and heard about it today), I smiled at this comment. :)

Pointless

[betterunixthanunix]

This will just push people toward less centralized systems; Tor hidden services come to my mind as does Freenet, but there are others out there.

It is time to admit that the age of copyrights is over, and the longer we wait in developing a new method of monetizing creative works, the harder it will become.

Re:Pointless

[CmdrPony]

There is still need for copyrights. It would be impossible to monetize creation of movies etc. Now, there's some change but only regarding games. Valve started offering Team Fortress 2 for free, with in-game items. Facebook games have done so for a long time. Not everyone likes that, but that is actually companies adjusting to the situation. It's been like that in Asia for a long time. Now I have no idea how to apply it to music and movies, but it works for some games.

Re:Pointless

[beltsbear]

Namecoin is one option, decentralized so that it can not be shut down. Namecoin is an addition to DNS and can be added to a regular linux nameserver. http://dot-bit.org/

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

This will push nerds towards less centralized systems; but these raids are very effective at keeping the common folk for buying this shit.

Re:Pointless

[ScentCone]

This will just push people toward less centralized systems; Tor hidden services come to my mind as does Freenet, but there are others out there.

Really? You really think that someone who Googles for discount ("cheap") versions of otherwise somewhat costly software for automotive use, or who are looking for logo-oriented things like NFL jerseys are going to be sing Tor to do their buying of counterfeit goods? When they want to pull out a credit card and get a brand-name purse or shoe at a tenth of the normal price (and are dumb enough to not consider the fact that they're buying a poorly made rip-off of the actual item), you think they'll be looking to a ghost network of proxies and hidden networks?

Or is it possible that it's just a lot simpler than that. That, just as mentioned in the fine article, you're dealig with web sites run by scam artists and counterfeiters who are hoping that average consumers looking to place an online order won't recognize that they're dealing with criminals. Sites being run by plainly obvious counterfeiters got shut down, just like their warehouses are shut down if they're within the jurisdiction of law enforcement agencies that see what they're doing and have the mandate to stop them.

Re:Pointless

[russotto]

There is still need for copyrights. It would be impossible to monetize creation of movies etc.

Is the entertainment you get from movies worth the loss of freedom all around that the movie industry buys?

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

age of copyrights is over
That is wishful thinking. This *is* the age of copyright, and it is about to get 100x worse. Thanks to our bought and paid for politicos.

This movie was supposed to be a comedy not a documentary...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104114/

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

There is still need for copyrights. It would be impossible to monetize creation of movies etc.

No it wouldn't. Look at some of the Kickstarter or Indie Gogo projects to get a hint of how funding projects that don't need all the copy protection is done.

Re:Pointless

[hedwards]

False dichotomy, there's no reason why there couldn't be a medium of some sort here. In fact for decades that's how it worked out. People will figure out how to get around restrictions if need be, but you can't do that if the media isn't being produced in the first place.

As far as that goes we'd have to come a lot further towards totalitarianism before that becomes a serious issue. For all the well justified hubbub we'd be better of just contributing to pay off the few suits that the *AA actually bothers to file.

Re:Pointless

[hedwards]

Is it though? Since the RIAA started fighting piracy seriously its sales have dropped dramatically from where they were in the late 90s. They might be having success with piracy, but it's not likely to be helping their bottom line.

Re:Pointless

[poity]

It is time to admit that the age of copyrights is over, and the longer we wait in developing a new method of monetizing creative works, the harder it will become.

I agree, but I have a rather bleak view of it. It seems to me that when confronted with competitors that have only production costs, the creative people will endeavor to make their money in the extremely short window of time before the counterfeiters can get into the market. I fear this would cause them to withhold their revolutionary ideas from the public, to release products with incremental improvement and an emphasis on mass appeal. We'd end up having shorter and shorter intervals of fads made to appeal to hundreds of millions over weeks and months. A few weeks after initial release, when counterfeiters are just catching up, the original creators would start the next fad. It would be like the fashion industry taking over games, music, movies, etc. And from the things we're seeing now, I think we're already heading in that direction.

Re:Pointless

[cynyr]

maybe not the content of the movie itself, but around the convenience of watching it, or the kids toys (look at how much cars made from the sale of movies, vs the sale of other "hard" goods). To be honest I hardly pirate anything, just a few motor-sports events(you know the ones where they have to turn in both directions, and change speed) that i just can't seem to find with decent coverage here in the states. If someone where to offer me a better option than bittorrent that would allow me to watch when i have time to over say 2-3 weeks from the time of the event, with at least the same quality as the 720P bit streams of the commercial free BBC coverage I get now I'd likely pay for it.

Anyways, thinking the content is the valuable part is the wrong way to look at it. Movies sell popcorn and Halloween costumes, not the movie itself.

Re:Pointless

[Luckyo]

The difference between "some copyright" and "what we have right now and direction in which we are headed" is similar to "USA" and "China" in terms of individual political freedom.

Re:Pointless

[misexistentialist]

Most Hollywood movies are already collecting 10s of millions upfront for incorporating advertisements. They are entitled to nothing, not even theater receipts.

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

People will figure out how to get around restrictions if need be, but you can't do that if the media isn't being produced in the first place.

You seem to suggest that profit is the only motive for creation. HD video cameras have never been cheaper. I have not one, but three different nonlinear editing suites available on my laptop, which has orders of magnitude more computational power than the massive systems that rendered the CGI effects in the movies I grew up watching. The further the proliferation of ever more powerful technology, and the less I would worry about "the media being produced". There are plenty of people who are willing to do it just because it's fun. Look at vimeo, or even youtube. Don't worry about "the media"; it will be produced. Just maybe not by large corporations who make overfunded, overhyped derivative least common denominator-pandering Content then treat society at large as pre facto criminals and lobby congress to make sure they never have to change anything ever because they're just perfect just the way they are and deserve a revenue stream in perpetuity. There's plenty of reasons other than simple greed to "produce media", and I find greed-as-production-motive to be strongly inversely correlated to quality of said media.

Your assertion that no one would pick up a camera if it weren't for the promise of vast fortunes is silly, and reveals a bias in favor of the Industry I describe above. These are the people that keep giving Michael Bay work. They don't need any encouragement.

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

False dichotomy, there's no reason why there couldn't be a medium of some sort here.

Incorrect. There can be no medium. What the proponents of imaginary property are asking for is by definition mechanisms for widespread censorship. History has shown time and time again with no counterexamples, when these mechanisms exist and are enforced on a large scale, they will be used to suppress political speech and forms of expression protected by the first amendment.

If you build it, they will come. If you deploy a widespread legal and technological censorship mechanism, it will be used for widespread censorship.

Imaginary property is fundamentally incompatible with western style of democratic government, as is any form of widespread censorship. The general population is only now starting to wake up to how poisonous imaginary property is because the enforcement mechanisms have grown so powerful. This trend will continue.

Re:Pointless

[russotto]

False dichotomy, there's no reason why there couldn't be a medium of some sort here.

The movie industry is the reason there cannot. They have forced the DMCA upon us, and it did not work. They have sued everyone they can find, and it has not worked. Now they want (and will likely get) the power to ban people from the Internet on their own say-so; of course, it will not work, so they'll come up with something even worse. Content fingerprinting in every videocamera, perhaps, much as the RIAA suggested an anti-piracy detector in every ADC.

As far as that goes we'd have to come a lot further towards totalitarianism before that becomes a serious issue.

The DMCA was enough. PROTECT-IP is more than enough.

For all the well justified hubbub we'd be better of just contributing to pay off the few suits that the *AA actually bothers to file.

Paying the Danegeld never works.

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

the only thing hollywood does is to take old movies and make new ones with more violence

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

So, basically you're saying that the only difference is how you call it?

Re:Pointless

[Rich0]

Is the entertainment you get from movies worth the loss of freedom all around that the movie industry buys?

While I support reform I too think that a complete absence of copyright would basically mean the end of the movie industry.

I'm not sure that is really the outcome we want - can't we have our cake and eat it too?

If you don't think that movies are worth the loss of freedom, then simply don't watch them or distribute them. If you don't copy movies, then copyright law won't apply to you anyway. Granted, that won't solve the problem of false accusations and the whole judge-jury-executioner model the MPAA is pushing for, but it would avoid most of the legal problems.

If you want to copy movies legally, then you need to start with a world where there are actually movies to copy.

A sane copyright system would allow for a reasonable profit on new works, but not with so many restrictions on how they are used, and for a much shorter period of time. The good thing about copyright is that it allows companies to raise the capital needed to make movies, but it doesn't force people to pay for them if they don't want to watch them. Systems like voluntary donations generally don't raise much capital (or they don't give good incentives to actually make a decent movie since the profts are guaranteed and not at risk). Systems like government grants are arbitrary (how do you decide if a movie is worth rewarding), and they force people to pay for movies they don't care about.

I don't think that IP law is worth completely abandoning. It just needs a LOT of reform. The simplest reform is to curtail the durations across the board, and set them up by type of work and industry such that they generally allow for a reasonable profit to be made without decades of exclusive control.

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

Movies can still be monetized: Movie theaters, 3D, popcorn, etc. Hard to replicate at home.

Re:Pointless

[dodobh]

Danegeld.

Re:Pointless

[Legion303]

"and are dumb enough to not consider the fact that they're buying a poorly made rip-off of the actual item"

On a tangent, how DOES one tell the difference between a genuine product of Indonesian sweatshops vs. a "poorly made rip-off" from the Chinese sweatshops?

Re:Pointless

[Kalriath]

There can only be no medium as long as extremist zealots exist on both sides of the fence. On the one hand. you have the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/ESA who insist that all media must be controlled by them and paid for. On the other hand you have extremist crazies like you who insist that all media must be free because you can't own ideas.

The middle ground is when both of you fuck off and we can get to some actual common sense discussion of the problem.

Re:Pointless

[ScentCone]

Are you really unable to understand the difference in materials and workmanship between, say, an actual Rolex watch, and one that it costs $1.50 to manufacture? Gucci was originally a sadle maker. Have you ever actually looked at the workmanship on one of their expensive bags, briefcases, or their shoes? Are you that unable to pick up a $5 knock-off and see cheesy, unfinished machine stitching instead of careful hand work?

Re:Pointless

[Legion303]

Oh, I'm sorry. I assumed from your many examples--many of which are in fact made in sweatshops--that you were talking about things other than Rolex branded watches and Gucci branded handbags.

I'm confused

[NiceGeek]

Why are you guys bitching about the government not allowing the sale of counterfeit clothing or distribution of pirated software again? Could have sworn those things were against the law.

Re:I'm confused

[apcullen]

There is no bitching about not allowing the sale of counterfeit clothing or pirated software. The point is that the US government is, without any form of due process, taking down web sites. And some of these web sites are located in other countries, where the US government has no direct jurisdiction. There. Now you're not confused anymore.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

True...its illegal...its their job to protect and enforce the law. You all need to think about the day when the government stops...you will then have grounds to complain...

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, its against the law but normally people who break the law have an opportunity to defend themseves in court. There is always a grey area. You should have a right to defend it.

Re:I'm confused

[LordThyGod]

"Law" implies some kind of due process. This is more how authoritarian regimes work, by decree.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

but they're not taking down the host, only enforcing law on US-based DNS registrars. you can probably still access those sites via ip.

Re:I'm confused

[TubeSteak]

And some of these web sites are located in other countries, where the US government has no direct jurisdiction.

As long as ICAAN is under US Jurisdiction, that's something of a moot point.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

And some of these web sites are located in other countries, where the US government has no direct jurisdiction.

Cheaper than extraordinary rendition.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but as a US citizen, I feel much safer now.

Re:I'm confused

[Slyfox696]

There is no bitching about not allowing the sale of counterfeit clothing or pirated software. The point is that the US government is, without any form of due process, taking down web sites.

In fairness, and I admit I don't know the whole process, but can those domains not challenge the takedown, and if they win, have the domain restored? At which point, is it any different than when an officer sees you breaking into a car and arrests you for it?

Don't get me wrong, the idea bothers me as well, and I waffle back and forth about how I feel about their ability to unilaterally take down websites, especially for domains not located in the United States. But the summary makes it sound as if these sites were selling counterfeit goods (many times to American citizens), which affects the regular citizen every bit as much as it does businesses. Which is to say there is a difference between this and the taking down of torrenting sites.

Re:I'm confused

[fnj]

Due process, goddammit. Do - you - understand - it? (apologies to Pulp Fiction)

Re:I'm confused

[Sloppy]

Ok, seriously, here's the answer:

I don't know that any of the sites in question are selling counterfeit goods. I'm not talking proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt or anything like that, just vague informal subjective stuff. What was autocd.com doing? I never heard of them. I can't even begin to guess.

Under normal circumstances, this is an easy problem to solve. You just go look at what the accused person was saying. If they're actually guilty and their crime happens to involve soliciting transactions, then all you have to do is go look at the things they've been saying, and you'll very likely see stark black-and-white evidence of them incriminating themselves.

Oops, we can't see them shooting their mouths off in public about their own crime, because they've been censored.

That's bad. Really bad. As a very distant-second choice, though, at least some information will eventually come out at their trial. Oops, except we've decided to unanimously vote for parties who say "Fuck due process." There will be no trial.

I'm being asked to accept on 100% faith that someone did a bad thing. I'll never see any evidence myself that it's true, and I'll never even receive an assurance that "the system" that we all count on serving justice -- the same thing we rely on protecting you and me -- reviewed this apparently-too-sensitive-for-the-public evidence and came to that conclusion. Maybe you're enough of a religious nut for that amount of faith, but I'm not.

All the formal and informal checks have been bypassed; we're talking about true anarchy and a breakdown of law here. Given that, why would anyone care about something as relatively trivial as counterfeit goods? ICE's actions themselves totally overshadow that.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

So ignoring due process on foreigners is OK?

Re:I'm confused

[Smallpond]

According to the ICE website, they seize domains after they have collected evidence and obtained a warrant, the same way they seize things in any other crime.
I don't expect you to read it yourself, but its right here"

http://www.iprcenter.gov/reports/fact-sheets/operation-in-our-sites/view

Now go back to your spittle-flecked rant.

Re:I'm confused

[Anthony Mouse]

In fairness, and I admit I don't know the whole process, but can those domains not challenge the takedown, and if they win, have the domain restored? At which point, is it any different than when an officer sees you breaking into a car and arrests you for it?

Let's consider this for a minute. Assume you can go to court in the US and demand they give you back your domain name.

You're some guy in Russia who makes barely enough to buy food and shelter by selling legitimate products which you buy as damaged goods for a steep discount and then repair them yourself before reselling. Your website has just disappeared, so you now have no income. In order to get it back, you have to go to court in the United States. The plane ticket will cost you $2000, but first you'll have to get a Russian passport and a US travel visa. Then you'll have to live in a hotel for who knows how long and hire a lawyer who charges more in one day than you make in a year, who you can't communicate with very well because you don't speak very good English. While you're in the US away from your wife and kids you won't be allowed to work or generate any income because your travel visa doesn't allow it. By the time all is said and done, and you've got your domain back, you'll have accumulated a debt equal to about four times your annual income (assuming someone was even willing to lend you the money).

There is a reason why jurisdiction does not normally extend outside a country's borders. The hardship on someone who has to travel to the other side of the world to protect his livelihood is too great. And you're subjecting foreign nationals to US laws without giving them a vote.

I think you can see why the analogy to someone breaking into a car is inapt: When you get arrested the government provides you with a lawyer. You get a trial, which is held where you are instead of on the other side of the world. If you can't make bail you have a criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial, and in the meantime the government provides you with food and shelter. By contrast, when you have your domain name taken by a foreign government, there is no trial beforehand, you have no opportunity to be heard, the government doesn't provide you with a lawyer and there is a mountain of bureaucracy and a cash furnace between you and getting back what belongs to you.

Re:I'm confused

[0123456]

According to the ICE website, they seize domains after they have collected evidence and obtained a warrant, the same way they seize things in any other crime.

In what sense is a domain name evidence in a crime?

Are you saying that if the police claim I'm selling counterfeit DVDs they can seize my telephone number and redirect it to their own phone, thereby probably putting me out of business even if I'm completely innocent?

This is purely about punishment without conviction.

Re:I'm confused

[mdmkolbe]

With an arrest you can post bail. The point isn't to punish you until a court clear you, but to ensure that you don't run away (or go on a killing spree) while the trial is ongoing. This isn't anything like an arrest.

If it makes you feel better, according to DoJ/ICE, they have a seizure warrant issued by a federal judge. However, this still reeks of bad things to come (e.g., DoJ/ICE calling it "theft" doesn't inspire me with hope). I may not defend counterfeiting, but I will defend our Internets.

On the plus side, we've needed a DNS2 for a while and these actions might be enough to get it started.

Re:I'm confused

[jroysdon]

They can challenge it in court, but I'm doubt there will be any such challenge as they know it's a slam dunk with the domain caught red-handed selling counterfeit goods but passing them off as real.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know that any of the sites in question are selling counterfeit goods. I'm not talking proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt or anything like that, just vague informal subjective stuff. What was autocd.com doing? I never heard of them. I can't even begin to guess.

This doesn't take too long to work out thanks to the internet archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110721213557/http://www.autocd.com/

AUTO CD.COM is your best, one-stop source for all electronic parts catalogues, auto repair manuals, service manuals, automotive repair, spare parts, auto diagnostics and auto repairs software available

They use DRM on their catalogues:

Each computer has its own key of activation, that's why if you install the catalogue on other computer, a new key of activation will be required. To receive the activation key you should login to our website, go to "Recent Orders" section and select your order number by clicking on it. In a field that will appear please enter the key given to you by the program. Activation key will be sent to you by email within 24 hrs. You can get additional keys of activation in the "Activation Keys/Codes" section.

Re:I'm confused

[KahabutDieDrake]

Actually, they can do that too. They used to do it a lot. Now they tend to only use that tactic on child porn websites and terrorist BBS's.

Re:I'm confused

[Slyfox696]

Let's consider this for a minute. Assume you can go to court in the US and demand they give you back your domain name.

You're some guy in Russia who makes barely enough to buy food and shelter by selling legitimate products which you buy as damaged goods for a steep discount and then repair them yourself before reselling.

I'm sorry, you already lost me. That's not what happened in this case, or from what the summary says happened in this case. What happened in THIS case is someone is making money off a reputation they didn't earn, and have no right to. The people who buy these goods, are paying money for something they think is authentic, but is not.

Of course, you would argue all of this is "alleged", but so is any other case where you're temporarily prohibited from doing something. If you don't like my car analogy, let's try this one:

My wife's friend was in a tumultuous relationship with a woman which eventually ended with the woman becoming pregnant and having his child. This woman, without cause, filed for a restraining order, which is automatically granted by the court, until the date comes where my wife's friend can appeal it. This means my wife's friend cannot be in contact with her, until the first court date, which was approximately a month after the restraining order was filed. I think the restraining order was eventually dropped because the woman didn't even show up to the court date, but before that happened, my wife's friend was at the University library studying for a class, and he was arrested, because while he was there, the woman showed up and said he gave her a dirty look.

My wife's friend was arrested for studying at the University library, because he violated a court order restraining order which he had no chance to fight. So, again, how is what is happening here different?

Like I said, I'm not saying I'm comfortable with it, but I don't think it's exactly outside the realm of what goes on routinely in America. And as far as the poor Russian goes, like others have said, his website probably isn't offline, just the domain is gone. I don't like it, but I don't see it being much different than many other things which happen in this, and I'm sure other, countries.

Re:I'm confused

[Slyfox696]

With an arrest you can post bail.

And with this, you can post an objection to the domain seizure. Correct?

Re:I'm confused

[Anthony Mouse]

That's not what happened in this case, or from what the summary says happened in this case.

So they say. We don't actually know unless we hear from the operators of the website, which we haven't. Which is the whole problem.

Like I said, I'm not saying I'm comfortable with it, but I don't think it's exactly outside the realm of what goes on routinely in America.

It seems like your argument boils down to: Sometimes justice is not done, and so therefore it doesn't matter that other times justice is not done. I don't think that's how it works.

Re:I'm confused

[Slyfox696]

So they say. We don't actually know unless we hear from the operators of the website, which we haven't. Which is the whole problem.

Well, I think "17nflshop.com" is pretty clear, wouldn't you?

It seems like your argument boils down to: Sometimes justice is not done, and so therefore it doesn't matter that other times justice is not done. I don't think that's how it works.

That's not my argument. My argument is we don't see the idea of arrest before conviction as an injustice, nor do we see TROs without defense as an injustice. As such, seeing how neither of those previous scenarios are an injustice, is there a reason to see this as an injustice, aside from the fact we don't like any governmental control over the Internet at all?

Re:I'm confused

[Dan541]

They aren't illegal in China. The United States has gone beyond it's jurisdiction to shut down foreign owned and operated websites.

Re:I'm confused

[Anthony Mouse]

Well, I think "17nflshop.com" is pretty clear, wouldn't you?

It sounds like a place you might find NFL merchandise. How does that tell you anything about its legitimacy? If they're strictly selling legitimate second hand merchandise, you can still imagine the NFL preferring not to have the competition. This is why we have hearings.

My argument is we don't see the idea of arrest before conviction as an injustice, nor do we see TROs without defense as an injustice. As such, seeing how neither of those previous scenarios are an injustice, is there a reason to see this as an injustice, aside from the fact we don't like any governmental control over the Internet at all?

I think you're confusing what happens in court with justice. Courts take shortcuts and make mistakes. The seizures in question were signed off by a court. The question is whether it was right, not whether it was officially sanctioned. I mean read your own post above: You've given a perfectly good example of why granting a TRO without hearing from the defense is an injustice. Two wrongs don't make a right; neither do a thousand.

Re:I'm confused

[mdmkolbe]

When you post bail, you go free until they prove you guilty. When you object to a seizure, the domain stays seized until you prove your innocence.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now go back to your spittle-flecked rant"

Ha, ha, ha.... I laughed my arse off!, Thanks!

Re:I'm confused

[shutdown -p now]

Well, maybe it shouldn't be.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume that challenging something in court is cheap and that businesses can afford downtime in the meantime.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is a reason why jurisdiction does not normally extend outside a country's borders. The hardship on someone who has to travel to the other side of the world to protect his livelihood is too great. And you're subjecting foreign nationals to US laws without giving them a vote." HAHAHAHAHA... When US daily drops BOMBS on innocent people all over the world, some idiot is concerned about a few domain seizures!

Re:I'm confused

[Slyfox696]

It sounds like a place you might find NFL merchandise. How does that tell you anything about its legitimacy? If they're strictly selling legitimate second hand merchandise, you can still imagine the NFL preferring not to have the competition. This is why we have hearings.

The website wouldn't be on the hit list, unless NFL complained about it. And if the NFL complains about it, you can be assured they are not licensed to sell NFL merchandise. With that particular URL, it's very clear the website is trying to make money off a product they have no right to make money from.

I think you're confusing what happens in court with justice. Courts take shortcuts and make mistakes. The seizures in question were signed off by a court. The question is whether it was right, not whether it was officially sanctioned. I mean read your own post above: You've given a perfectly good example of why granting a TRO without hearing from the defense is an injustice. Two wrongs don't make a right; neither do a thousand.

No, I think you're confusing your idea of what YOU think should be the process as opposed to the process which has been decided over many years of legal....discussion, for lack of a better word. You're wanting to impart your own vision of "justice", not the one which has been in existence for a long time. The problem with that is if we all have our own standard of justice, how could anything get done?

You simply cannot apply your own individual idea of justice, and then criticize the governmental entity for not following your particular individual idea of justice. It is incredibly unfair.

Re:I'm confused

[Slyfox696]

Unless they deny you bail, or you can't afford it, at which part you're SOL, right?

They are not taking away your website, merely the domain name associated with it. You register a new domain name, and you continue along your way.

Re:I'm confused

[Anthony Mouse]

The website wouldn't be on the hit list, unless NFL complained about it. And if the NFL complains about it, you can be assured they are not licensed to sell NFL merchandise. With that particular URL, it's very clear the website is trying to make money off a product they have no right to make money from.

Why do you imagine that people need a license to resell knickknacks?

You seem to be purposefully ignoring the possibility that the NFL is trying to claim more rights than they actually have and that the site isn't doing anything wrong. The name implies what they're selling, it doesn't tell you whether it's legitimate. If they're selling used legitimate goods, or licensed goods below the MSRP having never agreed to do otherwise, the NFL has no right to stop them. That doesn't mean the NFL doesn't still want to or wouldn't still put them on the list knowing that the site has no recourse.

I'm not saying they aren't just selling knock offs. What I'm saying is that you can't tell that just from the name; you need to give them a real chance to respond that doesn't cost them more than the value of the property being seized, otherwise you'll get unchecked abuses.

The problem with that is if we all have our own standard of justice, how could anything get done?

The problem with your argument is that there is no single, objective definition of justice. You have to pick someone's subjective definition and apply it, which is how we came to the status quo. It was the subjective definition of a bunch of politicians and judges. But the status quo is not infallible. You can't decide what the law should be strictly by looking at what it is, because that eliminates any possibility of fixing past mistakes.

Stare decisis is a device for attaining consistency. It works great when you get it right the first time. It replicates errors when you don't. It's totally useless as a tool for setting policy, because all it tells you is what the policy used to be, not whether it was good policy then or now.

And if we actually try to objectively decide whether issuing court order without hearing from the party affected is a good policy, we can find ample evidence of serious problems. Your friend is arrested for violating a restraining order he never had an opportunity to contest. Sites like Rojadirecta that are legal in their home countries have their domain names destroyed by foreign governments without notice. The list of abuses of ex parte asset seizures in the war on drugs goes on for miles.

Even the principle itself is simple and straight forward: If you want to seize property, the only person with any reasonable incentive to oppose a wrongful seizure is the current owner. Since we need to prevent wrongful seizures, that means we need to hear from the current owner before allowing the seizure. And then you can bring in all of the well-known, well-reasoned arguments for why you need to have personal jurisdiction over a party before you can bring an action against them.

Which leaves us with the ideal way of shutting down a counterfeiting site: You go to local law enforcement in the country where they're actually operating from and you have them arrested. (And if it's legal for them to do what they're doing where they're doing it, well, you either lobby that country to change the law or you're SOL. It isn't a valid goal to be able to control the whole world from K Street.)

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife's friend was arrested for studying at the University library, because he violated a court order restraining order which he had no chance to fight. So, again, how is what is happening here different?

Was this court order granted in another country from where the University is located?

Re:I'm confused

[Slyfox696]

You seem to be purposefully ignoring the possibility that the NFL is trying to claim more rights than they actually have and that the site isn't doing anything wrong. The name implies what they're selling, it doesn't tell you whether it's legitimate. If they're selling used legitimate goods, or licensed goods below the MSRP having never agreed to do otherwise, the NFL has no right to stop them. That doesn't mean the NFL doesn't still want to or wouldn't still put them on the list knowing that the site has no recourse.I'm not saying they aren't just selling knock offs. What I'm saying is that you can't tell that just from the name; you need to give them a real chance to respond that doesn't cost them more than the value of the property being seized, otherwise you'll get unchecked abuses.

Let me see if I have your argument straight. In an attempt to protect the poor Russian who is likely selling counterfeit goods (but we're unsure because we can't check at present time), using the NFL trademark they are likely not to have been given permission to used (and was likely reported by the NFL themselves), we should allow citizens to buy counterfeit goods to the detriment of both the citizen and the NFL, thus lining this "poor" Russian's pocket with illegitimate money, just so he doesn't have a domain name taken away from him, a domain name I can purchase today from GoDaddy for $10. The reason for this is because the process mirrors the same legal process we take for many other accusations of legal wrongdoing or legal protection which, according to your own subjective personal beliefs, is an injustice.

This is your argument, correct?

The problem with your argument is that there is no single, objective definition of justice. You have to pick someone's subjective definition and apply it, which is how we came to the status quo. It was the subjective definition of a bunch of politicians and judges.

People who were elected by citizens, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

Sites like Rojadirecta that are legal in their home countries have their domain names destroyed by foreign governments without notice.

Which is the part I said from the beginning I was uncomfortable with. However, as I also said, their websites are not destroyed and they can challenge the domain name seizure, which means they have proper avenues for retrieving their domain name if they don't wish to register another.

I understand completely your concern, but at the same time, I cannot (and do not) believe the government is picking domain names out of a hat to decide which should be seized. When the moment comes a site which is operating legally is seized AND cannot appeal the loss of their domain name, that is when I'll be concerned. Otherwise, it is getting upset and paranoid over nothing.

Re:I'm confused

[Anthony Mouse]

In an attempt to protect the poor Russian who is likely selling counterfeit goods (but we're unsure because we can't check at present time),

Yes, innocent until proven guilty is important.

using the NFL trademark they are likely not to have been given permission to used (and was likely reported by the NFL themselves),

The NFL doesn't have any right to stop someone from using the term "NFL" to refer to the NFL. It's fair use. Neither do they have any right to stop someone who has original but second hand merchandize from reselling it, because of first sale. But they would like to stop them anyway.

So my argument is that we shouldn't create a system where they can stop people who aren't doing anything wrong and rationalize it just because some entirely different people are doing something wrong, or one where they have no incentive not to make mistakes and impose the costs of those mistakes on innocent people.

we should allow citizens to buy counterfeit goods to the detriment of both the citizen and the NFL, thus lining this "poor" Russian's pocket with illegitimate money,

I repeat: If this person is selling counterfeit goods from Russia in violation of the law, you go to Russian authorities and have him arrested, or you go to treaty organizations and pressure the Russian authorities to do their jobs.

just so he doesn't have a domain name taken away from him, a domain name I can purchase today from GoDaddy for $10.

A domain name is worth more than $10. If you don't think so, go ask Apple how much they want for mac.com or Microsoft what they want for hotmail.com.

The reason for this is because the process mirrors the same legal process we take for many other accusations of legal wrongdoing or legal protection which, according to your own subjective personal beliefs, is an injustice.

We have a variety of legal processes that don't mirror one another. You're highlighting the ones that that mirror this practice and ignoring the ones that don't. In fact, courts issuing orders without hearing from both sides is by far the exception rather than the rule and is generally reserved for the most serious cases where irreparable harm will be done before the hearing can take place. I don't see how some asshat selling a couple of knockoffs rises to that level of immediacy.

People who were elected by citizens, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

People who are allowed to change their minds. Which is what they're supposed to do when they've made a mistake, which is what I'm arguing they have done for the many reasons outside of my subjective definition of justice that have already been discussed.

However, as I also said, their websites are not destroyed and they can challenge the domain name seizure, which means they have proper avenues for retrieving their domain name if they don't wish to register another.

Again, the problem is that small time foreign nationals don't have access to US courts. You can't reasonably expect someone living hand to mouth to buy a $2000 plane ticket, hire a $500/hour attorney and live in a $100/night hotel during a period of time where you've taken away their primary source of income.

Re:I'm confused

[Slyfox696]

Yes, innocent until proven guilty is important.

They haven't been convicted of anything. Not sure what you're getting at.

The NFL doesn't have any right to stop someone from using the term "NFL" to refer to the NFL.

Well sure they do. You can't misrepresent yourself as someone else in order to sell a product. Hell, this is straight from the EFF, generally considered a white knight in online freedom protection:

"That kind of use, known as "nominative fair use," is permitted if using the trademark is necessary to identify the products, services, or company you're talking about, and you don't use the mark to suggest the company endorses you. In general, this means you can use the company name in your review so people know which company or product you're complaining about. You can even use the trademark in a domain name (like walmartsucks.com), so long as it's clear that you're not claiming to be or speak for the company. "

Considering this site was likely taken down for counterfeit product, I daresay I was right.

A domain name is worth more than $10. If you don't think so, go ask Apple how much they want for mac.com or Microsoft what they want for hotmail.com.

That's such a ridiculous argument, I'm disappointed you even tried it. I can register for 171nflshop.com right now for $10. We're not talking about an existing domain which has been built by a worldwide company, we're talking about a random domain name created for the intent of trading upon someone else's hard work to make a quick buck.

We have a variety of legal processes that don't mirror one another. You're highlighting the ones that that mirror this practice and ignoring the ones that don't.

So what? The fact there are legal processes that DO mirror this practice serves my point. Why would I care about the ones that don't? I'm comparing apples to apples, I don't care about the oranges.

People who are allowed to change their minds.

Which they've shown no interest in doing. *shrugs*

Again, the problem is that small time foreign nationals don't have access to US courts. You can't reasonably expect someone living hand to mouth to buy a $2000 plane ticket, hire a $500/hour attorney and live in a $100/night hotel during a period of time where you've taken away their primary source of income.

So instead you expect the legitimate business who have worked their butts off for years to develop a good reputation to spend all of that money to get rid of something which clearly is in violation of the law? That's more fair?

No, your argument fails the logic test. Spare me the "poor" Russian trying to make money off of someone else's name. Especially since the sale of one counterfeit NFL jersey can purchase 5 domain names from GoDaddy.com.

Scribd? Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck do we even have HTML if no one is going to use it?

Did you read the list of sites?

[msobkow]

The list of sites reads like a "who's who" of counterfeit goods, not torrent sites. I didn't see a single torrent-related site that I recognized on the list.

Re:Did you read the list of sites?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the way I see it, they're free to switch focus of those activities quite freely. What happens if on the next batch, amid those counterfeit goods and torrent sites you'll find some blogs and personal websites deemed to be a a threat to national security?

Re:Did you read the list of sites?

[Anthony Mouse]

The list of sites reads like a "who's who" of counterfeit goods, not torrent sites. I didn't see a single torrent-related site that I recognized on the list.

What does it have anything to do with torrent sites? The problem is that they're seizing domains without due process and shutting down foreign websites, some of which (like Rojadirecta last time) are legal in their home countries.

This is not the way the internet is supposed to work. And the problem is, if we set this kind of precedent, how long until other countries reciprocate? Do we find it perfectly alright for China to make YouTube disappear from the internet over dissident videos by advertising a route to its IP and then dropping the packets, like Pakistan did in 2010?

The problem is that we have a choice: We can have an internet which is subject to the least restrictive laws of any country, or we can have an internet which is subject to the most restrictive laws of any country. There is no option that says "the internet as a whole is subject to US law but not French or Chinese law."

But if it makes you feel any better, the torrent sites are next on the agenda.

Re:Did you read the list of sites?

[msobkow]

Every one of those sites uses an international .com or .net address, not a country TLD. If they were using country TLDs, I could see the argument that they're under a foreign nation's jurisdiction. But .coms and .nets are international, and have to abide by international law, including those protecting businesses from blatant rip-offs of their products.

Re:Did you read the list of sites?

[Anthony Mouse]

Your argument is completely without merit. The operators of the sites are not in the US. The servers are not in the US. There is no "international law" being applied here, because if there was they would apply it against the actual operators of the website in their own country.

You can always find some frivolous relationship to any given country to try to claim jurisdiction. The TLD registrar has an office in the jurisdiction, the ad company has an office, the payment processor has an office, one of the ISPs that the traffic flows through has an office, one of the end users is in the jurisdiction, one of the chips in the webserver was manufactured in the jurisdiction, the payment processor has a customer who has an office in the jurisdiction, etc. etc.

Any country can play this game. So I repeat: We have a choice to make. Either the internet can be subject to the laws of the least restrictive country, or the laws of the most restrictive country. I don't know about you but I sure don't want China to have a world-wide veto on what you can say on the internet, and I'm sure the Chinese feel the same way about the US.

There is already a solution to counterfeiting on the internet. It's called local law enforcement. If there is a counterfeiter in Russia, you have the Russian authorities arrest them. If you don't feel that Russia is doing a good enough job of that, you negotiate a treaty that requires them to do better. And unlike your alternative, none of that requires ham-fisted bureaucrats to debase the single greatest communications medium ever invented.

Re:Did you read the list of sites?

[Anonymous Coward]

But they weren't dropped under international law.

It's not too late

[Anonymous Coward]

We still have time to save ourselves.

Re:It's not too late

[Kraftwerk]

I'd be careful with the Ron Paul stuff, liberty and personal responsibility doesn't fly well here.

How effective is this really?

[apcullen]

so... the DNS addresses were seized, or frozen, or censored (use your own term). Can these guys just register a new one tomorrow and be back in business the next time google does an indexing? Can't you still reach these places if you know the IP address? What's to stop them from posting something saying what their IP address is so people can reach them directly without using DNS?

There Goes Christmas Shopping

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess no one is getting their "authentic" Aaron Rogers or Tony Romo "gersery" this Christmas. Thanks ICE!

For freemium music, try concerts

[tepples]

It would be impossible to monetize creation of movies etc.

How was the short film Sintel financed?

Now I have no idea how to apply it to music

Live concerts and feelies (e.g. T-shirts) are the canonical method for applying the freemium model to recorded music. But I'll admit that this method doesn't translate well to movies, as few films are adapted into stage plays.

Length of a domain's history

[tepples]

Can these guys just register a new one tomorrow and be back in business the next time google does an indexing?

To distinguish serious, established, reliable web sites from fly-by-night web sites, Google is reported to take into account how long a domain has been continuously registered and how many years of registration have been paid in advance.

Re:Length of a domain's history

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much this. They'd really need to spread through informing people manually.

And to be honest, most of the time that is the better option since it keeps them under the radar for longer.
Although in the cases of selling stolen goods, it is going to be much harder to get any money this way.

One alternate solution would be contacts in a bunch of different countries printing out some leaflet things and passing them around.
They could look for the "dodgy" types, the people who you know would likely want to buy the cheaper knock-off stuff rather than the nice, tidy respectable looking people since they are less likely to be corrupt enough, and in some cases would just contact the police with the information.
Word of mouth would keep the site in the back alley, so to speak.

Of course, I probably shouldn't be posting this, I'd rather not help the actually corrupt form of piracy, selling others products and IP for a profit. That's just over the line.

Re:Length of a domain's history

[Anonymous Coward]

>To distinguish serious, established, reliable web sites
>from fly-by-night web sites, Google is reported to take
> into account how long a domain has been continuously
> registered and how many years of registration have
> been paid in advance.

If they're serious then, they'll have seasoned domains sitting out there ready to flip the operation into.

In other news

[lennier1]

Minutes later 1000+ domains went online.

MAFIAAfire

[Digana]

Oh, great, finally an udate to MAFIAAFire.... plus advertising for the seized domains! Now I want to check out what the US is censoring, and thanks to MAFIAAFire I can!

Re:MAFIAAfire

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, when I first read this, I couldn't help wondering, "What is 'pirated auto software'?" ICE has just piqued my curiosity.

alternates

[Iamthecheese]

We need truly open DNS NOW.

Re:alternates

[pongo000]

Already here.

Really, it baffles my mind why people keep calling for an "open" DNS structure when there is already one in place, has been in fact for over a decade. With enough public nameservers in place mirroring the root zone, it would literally be impossible for any government to shut down OpenNIC.

It's already here, my friend...all you need to do is pitch in and help.

Re:alternates

[Anonymous Coward]

It's yours, my friend... as long as you have enough rupees.

Piracy for profit...

[nurb432]

Is wrong, so if they stuck with that agenda i wouldn't have a problem with it.

Places selling cheap knockoffs where they state its not real, or 'fan sites' that get some ad revenue to keep their site open should be left alone.

Campaign Issue

[Sloppy]

What legislative candidates are running on a platform of enacting something that will explicitly outlaw what ICE did here? (Don't tell me it's already illegal; whether it's true or not, the courts have apparently decided otherwise.)

What executive candidates are running on a platform of, by order, prohibiting ICE from doing this?

America needs to know these two things, and we need to know right now.

Re:Campaign Issue

[misexistentialist]

Candidates do what they are told or they are not allowed to run.

Cannot wait till this fascist scumbag is out of

[Anonymous Coward]

... office...

Re:Cannot wait till this fascist scumbag is out of

[bussdriver]

Replace him with the GOP candidate who is even more Fascist and won't wimp out and cave in to Fascism but will openly promote those ideals (minus the negative terminology.)

They don't say trickle down anymore, its "job creators" and even the racists (with a bit of a brain) have migrated towards cultural and socioeconomic variations on social Darwinism to feed their dysfunctional emotional needs. Hell, classic racists like David Duke have a lawyer have a public relations man to look good... just your "friendly liberal KKK"... (that is an old song reference.)

The public can't handle rank voting or more than two rigged parties; those of us outside the 1 dimensional idiotic political spectrum have been upset longer than those of you who are finally being left behind as the whole thing shifts further towards despotism. If you only woke up sooner and in greater numbers... it wouldn't be too late.

Re:Cannot wait till this fascist scumbag is out of

[flimflammer]

Yeah, totally man! Because the next guy who goes into office is all about respecting the rights of foreign websites allegedly hawking counterfeit goods!

"autocd.com"? What about Feist vs, Rural Telephon

[Animats]

"autocd.com" sold parts catalogs for old vehicles. "AUTO CD.COM is your best, one-stop source for all electronic parts catalogues, auto repair manuals, service manuals, automotive repair, spare parts, auto diagnostics and auto repairs software available.

Auto parts catalog information is not copyrightable. That's been litigated, and the distributors of the third party parts catalog won. See ATC Distribution Group Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts Inc., 402 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2005). That follows from Feist vs. Rural Telephone, the telephone directory case. There is no creativity in a parts catalog.

Re:"autocd.com"? What about Feist vs, Rural Teleph

[Anonymous Coward]

No...but service manuals and other repair guides are surely copyrighted. They go for good money usually and MANY places sell cheap counterfeit copies.

Onoz! 17nflshop.com is down!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, 18nflshop.com is still up. Got worried there for a second.

Bye, Bye

[brit74]

Sorry, I don't really care that so many on Slashdot have a problem with this. If the sites are acting like scumbags, then I don't have a problem with these sites being taken down. The excuses seem pretty hollow:

"the US is forcing their laws on everyone else"? Seems that these sites are breaking laws agreed on internationally. It's not like copyright is a "only in the USA" thing. Most slashdotters seem to want the US to make a "great firewall of the USA" - and then they'd mock the US for having a "great firewall" and say that everybody will route around it anyway. As I've said for a long time: the internet, by its nature, is international which means that either copyright is enforced everywhere or copyright is nullified everywhere. I know many slashdotters prefer the latter, but at least recognize the inherent tension between these two options. When the piratebay can disregard copyright with total impunity, it means that everyone on the internet can disregard copyright with impunity.

"They should have the right to a trial"? Okay, but I'd like to see how well that works when people are in a different country. How long did it take before Roman Polanski was brought to justice again? Even worse, they're probably using registration-anonymizing services and it might be very well impossible to find out who these people really are. Let's say your site is breaking IP laws. You live off in Latvia or China or something. Here's your options: (a) ignore the US summons to appear in court and since you haven't had a trial your site stays up, or (b) book a ticket to the US, identify yourself to US authorities, have a trial. Who in their right mind is going to pick option "b"? Besides, it's not like the US is throwing them in prison or killing them.

Re:Bye, Bye

[Anonymous Coward]

"They should have the right to a trial"? Okay, but I'd like to see how well that works when people are in a different country. How long did it take before Roman Polanski was brought to justice again? Even worse, they're probably using registration-anonymizing services and it might be very well impossible to find out who these people really are. Let's say your site is breaking IP laws. You live off in Latvia or China or something. Here's your options: (a) ignore the US summons to appear in court and since you haven't had a trial your site stays up, or (b) book a ticket to the US, identify yourself to US authorities, have a trial. Who in their right mind is going to pick option "b"? Besides, it's not like the US is throwing them in prison or killing them.

So, your argument is that if it is difficult to prosecute them, that some group should be given the power to just take down any domain that *may or may not* be doing something illegal without a court being involved? What about web sites like ebay? They sell all sorts of pirated material on there. According to this line of thought, the government should be able to just take down the ebay.com web site without needing any trial or court order or whatever. How about Google.com? There are all sorts of links to .torrent files on there. By the logic of the *IAA, Google should be taken down without the need for a pesky trial. This is a slippery slope. If any web site that illegally violates copyright can be taken down, then the government has the power to take down any site that allows people to freely register accounts and upload content. Can you see any possible problems that might arise from this sort of scenario?

I'm guessing that you trust that the government would never go after anyone for the wrong reasons. I don't think history is on your side.

Re:Bye, Bye

[flimflammer]

Prepare to be modded into oblivion, friend.

Re:Bye, Bye

[Zamphatta]

This is exactly why treaties & extradition laws are made. The fact they are doing these things without an agreement with the host country, is essentially the USA intentionally breaking international laws. So your argument really says -- it's ok for the USA to break others laws on the other countries properties & citizens, 'cause the USA shouldn't allow people to break the USA's laws. So riddle me this -- how can the USA protect law & order if they have to break law & order to accomplish it?

Re:"autocd.com"? What about Feist vs, Rural Teleph

[spikestabber]

Obviously ICE is seizing first, asking questions later. (if at all)

Comprehension FAIL && perception of realit

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a craftsman going "So I fixed your wall, but I don't want you to pay me $500. Instead pay me $5, but everyone who ever has any use of that wall, has to also pay $5. And if you let anyone in without him having paid first, I'll sue you both for $500,000,000, call you and all your friends 'rapist sea-thugs', and even though I am only a one-person company that makes less money than your cleaning lady, will force the government to change the law so they will hunt you down like drug dealers, just for me."

You will agree, that that is fuckin' insane!

Making information is a service, and must be paid as a service. One time. Fixed amount. Done.
Everything else you can hope for (e.g. like a tip you get out of respect), but never demand or even expect.

Because information itself isn't a physical object, can't be owned, stolen or sold, is abundant,can be copied at will without harming anyone, and its distribution is physically impossible to control (unless you put DRM chips in everyone's head).
So clearly the above mentioned craftsman's business model is the right way to go... :P

Those companies haven't violated any US law

[YA_Python_dev]

There has been no trial, in the US or elsewhere, so we should assume that they are innocent.

Remember:

First they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the gays, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't gay.

Now someone is knocking at my door...

Jersey Boys sing a swan song?

[isdnip]

Most of these sites have the word "jersey" in them. It looks as if the NFL's licensing squad went a-hunting, and gave the list of unauthorized vendors to Uncle Sam. What's not obvious is whether all of these sites simply sell unauthorized jerseys, or whether other jersey vendors, or people from a certain island or state, also got nailed in the crosfire.

Re:Jersey Boys sing a swan song?

[karmarep]

I noticed the same thing.

I don't really need jerseys, but if I did, I know which price seems reasonable between these two.

$109.99 and that's 15% off. http://www.nflshop.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=2237430&cp=2237409
$23.99 cheap knockoff http://www.nfljerseys-b2c.com/Cheap-NFL-Jerseys/denver-broncos-c-1_13.html?page=2&sort=2d

Its all the greed of licencing fees. I'm sure someone just got a nice VIP suite for a season or two!

Re:Jersey Boys sing a swan song?

[bored]

$23.99 cheap knockoff

Cheap when compared with $110, but still totally crappy shirt for 2x what it should cost.

Jurisdiction

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

This doesn't have to happen, but it will if the US continues to regard its own domestic laws as superior to those others countries even within the jurisdiction of those countries. The the US cannot recognise basic principles of jurisdiction, then the international system of internet controls cannot continue be based there.

Actually, basic principles of jurisdiction *do not work* in the internet age. And in any event there is arguably jurisdiction if at least a part of the transaction occurred in the United States--for example, if the DNS server is in the US.

Kind of funny

[WindBourne]

We put more effort into stoppping piracy of MS software then we do into real terrorism. What makes this even odder, is that it was Gates who pushed piracy of MS crap to kill off competitors. Now, he wants the USA to pay to stop it, even though the MS shits still push piracy in China, as well as sell it for $2-4 for what sells here at $200-400.

America really has become a fascists nation.

Re:Kind of funny

[Anonymous Coward]

This entire thread has a lot of really idiotic statements but you take the cake.

Congrats on spewing a bunch of shit that doesnt even resemble any reality

Re:Kind of funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill, is that you? What is a WT like you, sluming it on /.

Re:"autocd.com"? What about Feist vs, Rural Teleph

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, automotive service manuals are surely copyright eligible. As are repair and diagnostic software. Pretty lucrative and competitive business. These same people sell copies of service manuals and diagnostic software on eBay...

Keep it to themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

Then don't host a .com, .net, .org or any other US TLD domain. Sounds like a no brainer.

Re:Keep it to themselves

[Dan541]

They didn't use any US TLD. These where .com's

The Times They'll Be-A-Changin'

[Zamphatta]

If they keep this up, I won't be surprised if the rest of the world gets together & develops a new domain system that keeps the US (and any other country) from being able to control *cough*icann*cough* the system like this. They'd probably start building this on top of IPv6 in order to separate it from the now popular net? Or maybe develop a whole new version of HTTP or IP to handle it without letting it crossover with the "US net". I don't know how they'll do it, but they'll have to do it if the US keeps doing this.

Dollars?

[Zamphatta]

Very interesting about the money spent fighting piracy vs terrorism. I did a quick Google but couldn't find the numbers for that. What are the dollars involved for each by the US gov't? I'm really interested in that.

Better than last time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any reports of valid legitimate domains being stolen under the protect our financial interests flag this time? If not, i guess they are (tongue-in-cheek) getting better.

The US Gov doesnt have the balls to take Youtube.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Fucking hypocrites and corporate cowards.

Re:"autocd.com"? What about Feist vs, Rural Teleph

[Anonymous Coward]

parts catalogues, auto repair manuals, service manuals, automotive repair, spare parts, auto diagnostics and auto repairs software available.

Yep, you're right! Right there in black and white it says all they sell is Third Party Parts Catalogs. That's been litigated and they're allowed to do it. Since, that is all they sell (see the quoted text above), then they haven't done anything wrong like sell illegitimate copies of auto repair and diagnostic software.

Re:"autocd.com"? What about Feist vs, Rural Teleph

[KahabutDieDrake]

Yeah, see they weren't selling "parts lists" they were selling service guides. Service guides (albeit wrongly IMHO) are copy-writable. Just because they use the word "parts list" to describe detailed step by step deconstruction, rebuild, and reconstruction instructions, does not mean they were innocent.

Under existing law(USA), the mechanical steps necessary to repair any portion of your car are considered proprietary and you can't know them unless you pay extortionist fees for that information. NOTE: this is information that any person could reverse-engineer with a set of tools and a few weeks. (that is also illegal)

Smoke and mirrors

[Cherubim1]

One has to wonder why some of the largest copyright infringers and shonky outfits on the net haven't had their domain names revoked yet. I suspect such sites are being used by various agencies for nefarious purposes.

Other seized sites

[hugheseyau]

When they seize sites, the feds (DOJ/FBI/ICE) point the domains to their server 74.81.170.110. Therefore, using a Reverse IP tool, we can see a list of all seized sites - http://viewdns.info/reverseip/?host=74.81.170.110

How Many Images

[pgn674]

If you're wondering how many different images exist for all the seizures, the answer is 9. You can see them all here. In my gathering, I found 338 seized domains pointing to 74.208.15.160 and 74.81.170.110

Strange targets

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like a whole bunch of sites selling football jerseys :\
I guess those shirts are pretty important to the American economy?

Am I the only one who reads ICE as "Imperial...

[arglebargle_xiv]

... Command Enforcement"?

Looking up the old Star Ace definition it's even appropriate:

Imperial Command Enforcement is composed of fanatically loyal elite troops who also function as the Imperial secret police. ICE has priority and authority over other branches when in the field, and answers only to the Emperor^H^H^H^HMAFIAA.

Seize IPv4 addresses instead...

[unixisc]

... and accelarate the migration to IPv6

no, these have a US registrar

[YesIAmAScript]

You can register a .com with non-US registrars. And then your domain cannot be seized by the US government.

The US doesn't have sole jurisdiction over .com domains, only over .coms registered with US registrars.

So it is an international shared resource.

Re:no, these have a US registrar

[shutdown -p now]

The authoritative registry for .com is Verisign - so, yes, U.S. has full jurisdiction over that TLD in practice.

Re:no, these have a US registrar

[Kalriath]

.com domains are ALL controlled by Verisign, a US company.

he didn't say it wasn't neutral

[Anonymous Coward]

He said they were incompetent or at least make foolish choices. And you try to rebut him by saying the same thing he did. By showing they

And as to the permanent security council members, I think that system is a joke too; especially the veto system. But saying that the countries you list somehow start the big wars is ridiculous. They are involved in the big wars, but they usually don't create them (Iraq being a noted exception).

Re:he didn't say it wasn't neutral

[Luckyo]

1. In many regards, Iran is quite good in terms of advancing human rights in its territory, especially when concerned with evolving from a full fledged dictatorship (under shah) with secret prisons, full out torture and other kinds of that system to democratic elections for several important political bodies, improvement of judicial process to better match general population's opinions and so on. It's obviously very different from our way of doing things, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't improved remarkably since Shah's times.
And yes, USA still has the highest percentage of its population behind bars in the world, including Iran. Yet it paints itself as the biggest protector of human rights. I would view a right to grow into something other then criminal, and being able to be rehabilitated after committing a crime rather then being incarcerated for extreme time in atrocious conditions (as in comparison to for example most of Western Europe) as a human right.
So its not like there is a country out there with a perfect human rights record. Problem is when people start using human rights issues as a tool for their own political agenda (which was seen so well in trade with China - they want you to effectively stfu about human rights if you want to deal with them and Western countries by far and large have complied).

2. "Creating a conflict" != "starting a conflict". I can create a conflict between two neighbors by stealing one's shovel and putting it in other's yard. I won't be the one starting the conflict, the neighbor who's shovel got stolen will.

Re:"autocd.com"? What about Feist vs, Rural Teleph

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Torrentfreak, that last bastion of unbiased information, concedes that autocd.com was a purveyor of pirated software.

What kind of morons

[Corwn of Amber]

still host their sites in the US of A? They deserve to be taken down. Did they never hear of that little private torrent tracker from Sweden?

Re:"autocd.com"? What about Feist vs, Rural Teleph

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a citation for that? Primarily functional knowledge like recipes are not copyrightable in the US under fairly well established case law. In a recent case (Ho v. Taflove) the courts found that basically the entire content of several scientific papers (text, figures, equations) were not copyrightable because their functional and factual nature.

As there been any litigation over the service manuals? Having use them in the past I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that you can't economically work on most cars with one, so even ignoring the copyrightability allowing copyright to extend monopoly control over the manual would in effect allow automakers a monopoloy on repair... not a desirable public policy.

I'm not talking about verisign

[YesIAmAScript]

I'm talking about the registrar for the domain. You're right, Verisign "runs" .com, but as far as I know, the US has not exerted control over .com domains that were with registrars that are outside the US.

ICE&DOJ - Serving Justice And Protecting The W

[Anonymous Coward]

But to me it seems like they're just utilizing federal resources to do the bidding of a few special interest groups like the NFL.

137 with 87,000 as colateral damage

[rhalstead]

Although they say they only took down 137 sites intentionally they ended up disabling 87,000 for which they are not even held responsible. IOW they are immune for prosecution for the loss of revenue from the 186,863 sites they took down by accident. Also the entertainment industry is now in the position of using the federal government "at our expense" to do their policing for them. Brick and mortar stores have to hire guards, but the entertainment industry now uses the feds with us paying the costs. Something needs fixing here.