Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Palm trees and 8
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.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
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.
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.
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?
"Law" implies some kind of due process. This is more how authoritarian regimes work, by decree.
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.
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.
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.
Minutes later 1000+ domains went online.
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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!
We need truly open DNS NOW.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
Due process, goddammit. Do - you - understand - it? (apologies to Pulp Fiction)
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.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"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.
No...but service manuals and other repair guides are surely copyrighted. They go for good money usually and MANY places sell cheap counterfeit copies.
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.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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.
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.
Obviously ICE is seizing first, asking questions later. (if at all)
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.
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.
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...
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
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.
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.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
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.
Yeah, totally man! Because the next guy who goes into office is all about respecting the rights of foreign websites allegedly hawking counterfeit goods!
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.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
Fucking hypocrites and corporate cowards.
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.
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)
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.
With an arrest you can post bail.
And with this, you can post an objection to the domain seizure. Correct?
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.
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.
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?
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
They didn't use any US TLD. These where .com's
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
They aren't illegal in China. The United States has gone beyond it's jurisdiction to shut down foreign owned and operated websites.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
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.
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
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.
Well, maybe it shouldn't be.
... 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.
... and accelarate the migration to IPv6
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.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
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.
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?
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
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.
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.