Judge Orders Hundreds of Websites Delisted From Search Engines, Social Networks

An anonymous reader writes "A federal judge has ruled that a number of a websites trafficking in counterfeit Chanel goods can have their domains seized and transferred to a new registrar. Astonishingly, the judge also ordered that the sites must be de-indexed from all search engines and all social media websites. Quoting the article: 'Missing from the ruling is any discussion of the Internet's global nature; the judge shows no awareness that the domains in question might not even be registered in this country, for instance, and his ban on search engine and social media indexing apparently extends to the entire world. (And, when applied to U.S.-based companies like Twitter, apparently compels them to censor the links globally rather than only when accessed by people in the U.S.) Indeed, a cursory search through the list of offending domains turns up poshmoda.ws, a site registered in Germany. The German registrar has not yet complied with the U.S. court order, though most other domain names on the list are .com or .net names and have been seized.'"

Comments

For non US-filtered search results

[CmdrPony]

If you don't want your search results filtered by US, use Yandex or alternatively Baidu.

There is also European StartPage / Ixquick, but it's more for privacy. It aggregates results from Google and other search engines, so US censors still apply. Yandex and Baidu are completely independant search engines.

Sadly, this is what US has become.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Anonymous Coward]

They're banning illegal counterfeit goods to protect consumers. I think that all you whiners need to DRINK YO PRUNE JUICE.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Baloroth]

Oh, the irony! (for those who don't wanna click even on a Wikipedia link: Baidu is a Chinese search engine and is one, and probably the, worst at censorship of all search engines.)

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[masternerdguy]

So they're saying that businesses can sue their competition out of search engines. This can't end well.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[brusk]

On the contrary, they're GREAT at censorship.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[CmdrPony]

The largest irony is in people saying how Google or US doesn't censor search results, but like this court order and the various "x number of search results have been removed from the page after complaints from copyright owners" text in search results. Different issues, but just as much censoring.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[cslax]

That's irrelevant to the general problem. Yes, they are counterfeit goods in this case, but this country LOVES precedent. But where does it stop? Can I bring down a website because it is opposite to the views of Congress? If this is going to be continued, there needs to be strict legal guidelines to prevent abuse of power from ANY power. This is what is worrisome.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[masternerdguy]

How does censoring the internet help consumers? A smart consumer will recognize that "rollex-official-site-buy".cn isn't the official website for rollexes.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[igreaterthanu]

Ah, but they aren't going to all censor the same things. What Google censors will likely show up on Baidu and vica versa.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Tanktalus]

You're reading the courts too broadly. They're saying that sites that traffic counterfit goods can be sued out of search engines. That's a fairly big difference. Pepsi can't sue Coke to get them out of search results.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Entrope]

There is definitely less -- and less harmful -- censorship in Google's results. Chinese search engines block results by words and phrases (what kind of results do you think you'd get for "Tiananmen Square"?). Google blocks results by URL (which is easier to change without changing the message).

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

While Free as in Freedom is a huge reason why this is problematic, are we free to counterfeit goods?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[mr1911]

censor

censoring

People keep using these words but do not seem to understand what they mean.

A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.

A judge ruling that search engines must de-index sites offering counterfeit wares is stupid and practically unenforceable, but not censorship.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[fusiongyro]

Can I bring down a website because it is opposite to the views of Congress?

I realize you're just trying to make a point, but this makes no sense whatsoever. How would this work, exactly?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[CmdrPony]

Less harmful is defined by your culture and population. Remember that most Chinese believe that it's for the country's good that government tries to keep some control. You probably wouldn't want your home, place of work and everything you've worked for your whole life pillaged by rioters. Just think about it from the eyes of Chinese.

On the other hand, what China censors on their search engine (ie., riots, Tienanmen square, etc to keep peace) is much less harmful than what US does with some mere cheap goods. But yeah, maybe it's a cultural thing and material stuff is important to you than your life.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Jibekn]

In a truly capitalistic society, there is no such thing as counterfeit goods, just goods for sale.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[DarkOx]

There is no such thing as "less harmful" where censorship is concerned. We know for the experience every society has had with it going back to the start of the written word, that once you start censoring it never stops. Today its websites that might be violating copyright, tomorrow its anything a senator does not like said about him, the day after its whatever some corporation does not want you be able to publish.

All public censorship is harmful, and it should always be opposed vehemently.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[tautog]

But, apparently, enough of the other 97% still click the link.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[WaffleMonster]

Barring misguided censorship in the name of big media, the United States is still relatively free. We can and seriously should have a frank talk about the nature and extent of filtering in the United States. To suggest that Russia and China are serious alternatives, however, doesn't advance this discourse in any meaningful way.

Baidu might suck for researching the perils of tank student interactions yet you won't find a better resource for your faux holday shopping needs.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[CmdrPony]

Judge works for government. A judge ruling that domains should be taken down (especially so with other countries TLD's!) and search results censored from the search results is a government-sanctioned filtering.

Just because you think "oh well, at least we can still say (almost) anything (almost) anywhere", doesn't make it any less censoring.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Red Flayer]

A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.

That depends entirely on how the judge implements enforcement of his ruling.

A judge ruling that search engines must de-index sites offering counterfeit wares is stupid and practically unenforceable, but not censorship.

I disagree.

The search engines are publishing the existence of the counterfeit wares sites upon the request of the people using the search engines. The judge is telling the SEs that they are not allowed to report facts (that is, the existence and location of those sites).

This is censorship any way you slice it, even if you agree with the motivation of the judge.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Anonymous Coward]

They're saying that sites that traffic counterfit goods can be sued out of search engines. That's a fairly big difference. Pepsi can't sue Coke to get them out of search results.

As usual, people aren't thinking the security through. If we are going to create a new mechanism whereby judges have the capacity to censor out counterfeit traffickers, then all this work that we're going to do to, will also create a mechanism for censoring out Coke. You can say that would be an illegal use of the mechanism, but nevertheless it will exist, and therefore the Internet will need to protect against it.

BTW, another weird thing about blanket censorship like this, is that "all search engines and all social media sites" were not party to the lawsuit. At least 99% of them (probably closer to 100%) weren't served, were not represented in court, etc. Yet somehow they have a judicial order forcing them to alter their own data. Not that any of those parties (at least the big ones who got named) would really give a damn about the counterfeiter, but it's slimy (and possibly not binding) to impose on them.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[msauve]

What makes your examples not-censorship? At the core, common definitions of censorship agree that it is the restriction of speech (communications). When (if) you avoid using "Fsck" in polite conversation, you're censoring yourself.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[c0lo]

They're banning illegal counterfeit goods to protect consumers

Protect consumer from what? What is so dangerous in a cheap counterfeit Coco Channel purse or a Rolex replica?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Entrope]

On the off chance that you're not trolling in a phenomenally stupid manner: Take your cultural relativism and your totalitarian apologetics and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.

My "less harmful" was meant primarily in the sense that a posteriori censorship of known content is more specific (less likely to result in an unintended match) than a priori censorship based on keywords or similar patterns. But if you want to look at it from a moral perspective, then yes, Google's censorship of sites selling illegal wares is still less harmful than China's censorship of peaceful dissent.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[number17]

People keep using these words but do not seem to understand what they mean.

A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.

A judge ruling that search engines must de-index sites offering counterfeit wares is stupid and practically unenforceable, but not censorship.

From Mirriam-Webster
Judge: a public official authorized to decide questions brought before a court
Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Law: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

If the judge isn't applying the rules made by the government then whose rules are they? Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[TFAFalcon]

The problem is that the internet is not limited to just one country. So what gives a US judge the right to block a site hosted and registered in another country?

And what chance do the owners have to object if the complaint is unfounded? Do they have to spend thousands of dollars getting a lawyer in a country they don't even live in?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[c0lo]

But, apparently, enough of the other 97% still click the link.

And... what? Will the link explode? Or will the cheap Rolex replica strangle the owner?

Just who is actually in danger and need protection?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[rtaylor]

There is no such thing as "less harmful" where censorship is concerned.

So there is no type of content that you would make illegal to distribute or possess?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Anonymous Coward]

No consumers are being protected by this court order. The site mentioned in the blurb has a title reading "Designer Replica Handbags, Replica Handbags, Imposter Designer Handbags," all the product overviews prominently label their stuff as "replica". If anyone claims to have bought those believing they were genuine, they are probably Impostors.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Tanktalus]

For the record, I didn't say I agreed with the courts. Merely trying to keep our collective disgust at the snubbing of reality based on fact rather than overblown emotion.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Paracelcus]

"there needs to be strict legal guidelines to prevent abuse of power from ANY power"
The government has shown time & time again that they are above the law!

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[CmdrPony]

Just who is actually in danger and need protection?

US companies, of course. Frankly, people who travel overseas will buy them at will, fully knowing they are cheap replicas. And usually they also get a good product, only without the huge profit margin to company that made it.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.

Since when does "government" have anything to do with it?

to suppress or delete as objectionable
Merriam-Webster

This is textbook suppression. It doesn't matter who does it, or even the particular mechanism, but if the delisting from all (or even just some) web search engines doesn't qualify as an attempt to suppress, I don't know what does.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[sockman]

It would be anti-cronyism, and against brib... er, "lobbyists" and donations.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[edumacator]

We know for the experience every society has had with it going back to the start of the written word, that once you start censoring it never stops.

Patently false. We should continue to be vigilant, but your position suggests that there was leas censorship in the fifties than there is now. Obviously that isn't true. The truth is there has always been censorship and most likely always will be. The question we needare to continyou ask istoday when is it appropriate to for the larger good. Right now scientists are debating releasing information on a strain of the flu because of the potential downside of sharing the information with the world. And scientists are generally very averse to censorship. My point being it can be a complicated issue. Simplifying the issue to a level of absurdity only muddies the water of a very important social conversation.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[cheekyjohnson]

Personally, I can't think of any.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Anonymous Coward]

In all likelihood, the judge just signed off on a proposed injunction order drafted by the plaintiffs (the trademark holders). I'm assuming the defendants (the trademark infringers) didn't appear, thus allowing the court to enter an injunction against them by default. Usually, the courts have the winning side draft the terms of the proposed injunction, and the judge reviews and modifies it as necessary. Here, the "deleting" the websites from "all search engines" was probably some stupid language the plaintiff put in and the judge either didn't notice it or didn't think about how stupid that language is. Ultimately, it doesn't matter-- the injunction binds only those people who are parties to the case (the trademark infringers) or who work in "active concert" with them -- something that no court would deem a search engine to be.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[TheEyes]

Remember that most Chinese believe that it's for the country's good that government tries to keep some control.

I'm Chinese and I despise sinophile apologist fucks like you. You have no right to speak for anyone.

I'm also Chinese and I have to say GP is unfortunately correct. Poll after poll of people actually living in Communist China shows the vast, vast majority think that the government should play a role in "protecting the people from dangerous ideas" and the like. They're fools, and they're wrong, but they're out there, just like the lunatic Fox News fringe exists here in the US (which unfortunately makes up a large enough voting bloc to win a majority of Congress in 2010).

You can be as indignant as you want, but don't ignore reality just because it disgusts you; that's kind of what those other people that you'd rather ignore are doing.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Bob9113]

They're banning illegal counterfeit goods to protect consumers.

No they're not. The way you do that is by tracking the sales, seizing the goods, and putting the vendors in jail.

What the judge is doing is banning speech. Banning a person who should be tried and (as far as I can tell) found guilty of trafficking in illegal merchandise from speaking. But it's so easy for the government to sit on it's fat ass like Henry VIII, wave a greasy drumstick in the air, and proclaim the Internet Death Sentence. By contrast, having actual law enforcement officers tracking down actual physical crimes, then wading through the slow and expensive process of having a real trial with an actual defendant is just far too much work.

Electronic justice is like clicking through channels on teevee. You can do it while stuffing your face with bon bons. No defendant to object, no defense attorney making arguments about how various things are illegal or unconstitutional. It's so much easier, don't you see? And that's what we want -- easy pseudo-justice that favors big lobbyists. In fact, after polling all the power-brokers in the halls of Congress, a recent study found 100% agreement -- easy pseudo-justice that favors the corrupt is Good For America.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Anonymous Coward]

I love that you brought up Yandex. They kick ass. I used to teach English to the Yandex devs in the St. Petersburg office. Their service is lightyears ahead of Google and the rest in a few very practicle areas. Unfortunately their service only shines in Slavic languages. It breaks down a bit in the English department (not my fault, I taught intermediate and beginner levels, and if you work there, you probably know me, so I'm not such an AC to you). They had product price searches for your local city long before Google even deployed "Shopping" results. And you could save on shipping because you just contact the warehouse and hop on the metro and go pick up what you bought right at the warehouse. Russia is also a credit card paranoid culture, so everything runs pretty old school, but effective. When you place an order on a website, someone from the warehouse calls your cell phone and asks you if you really placed an order. If you confirm, then the thing you ordered will be waiting for you. Just hand over the cash and you're on your way. Of course I was there a few years ago, and Russia is developing very fast, so I'm sure most of the retailers accept credit cards now.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[betterunixthanunix]

are we free to sell counterfeit goods?

FTFY; what is at issue here is not whether or not you are free to produce "counterfeit" goods (which are probably being made by the same people who produce "genuine" goods), but whether or not you are free to run a mail-order business that sells those goods.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[viperidaenz]

So they're saying that businesses can sue their competition out of american based search engines

Fixed that for you

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[betterunixthanunix]

I will stand up an say it: no type of content should be illegal to distribute or possess. Sorry, I know it really hurts the "think of the children" and "oh my God terrorists will know how to make nukes" crowds, but we are supposed to be the country where people are free, inclusive of being free from censorship. Once we get into the business of prosecuting people because of files on their hard drives, documents on their bookshelves, or thoughts in their minds, we cease to be a free society (so I guess we are not a free society).

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Daniel Dvorkin]

A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.

A judge ruling that search engines must de-index sites offering counterfeit wares is stupid and practically unenforceable, but not censorship.

Yes, both of these things are in fact government censorship. If you say otherwise, then you're using a definition of censorship completely different from the commonly understood meaning of the word; feel free to do that if you want, but don't expect everyone else to play along.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[mug funky]

hosted in another country. piss off.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[betterunixthanunix]

your position suggests that there was leas censorship in the fifties than there is now. Obviously that isn't true

Is that obvious? True, pornography and communist literature has been legalize, but we have since made the following things illegal or have otherwise engaged in censorship:

• Child pornography (for a short period of time after pornography was legalized, it was not illegal to possess child pornography; moral arguments aside, we do censor this now, and to a much greater degree than pornography in general was censored in an earlier era)
• Information on drug production (TiHKAL an PiHKAL cost Alexander Shulgin his research license)
• Islamist literature
• Source code for algorithms that crack certain ciphers or subvert certain security systems
• Laws (yes, really, there are laws that you are not allowed to know about)

...and that only represents the list of things that immediately come to my mind. While there was quite a bit of censorship in the 1950s, I would say that we are either at the same level today, or even slightly beyond that level.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but some content should be illegal to produce.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Thing 1]

So there is no type of content that you would make illegal to distribute or possess?

Agreed. I do not consider any content to be more harmful than the act of censoring it.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[kiwimate]

No, actually it's very relevant. For everyone making a fuss about the judge's ignorance, idiocy, etc., I'd really like to hear how you'd address the problem. (Yes, it is a problem. It's the same principle as demanding that any kind of license, be it GPL or BSD, be adhered to, or Richard Stallman insisting that people should say GNU/Linux.)

Put a bit more simplistically - we have an age-old problem (fakes, cheapening of a brand, etc.) which is now complicated by technological advances. What's the best solution that all the technological cleverness on Slashdot can devise? Think of it as a geek challenge...

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[EzInKy]

You are wrong, being told you can't say something unrestricted is censorship and both trademark and copyright law do exactly that.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[poity]

By GP's logic then I could make the argument that the particular kind of censorship in the US that is being critiqued in this thread is also a cultural phenomenon above all else, and that it should be best approached from that perspective of non-judgmental understanding of "US culture" despite anyone's objection that the "culture" is a result of brainwashing, and that the torrent of +5 Insightful morally indignant posts we see in this thread being directed at the US is in fact a manifestation of their ignorance of US culture.

Do we want to go down that path?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[cslax]

The point is that there is no prior case law specifically prohibiting them from doing this. Until communication on the Internet is afforded the same rights as print and speech, there is no reason that ICE, etc. cannot demand a site be removed in this same manner for whatever reason they choose.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not deal with the fact that "counterfeit" is based on copyright and that every country has different copy right laws. This is another example of who some Americans believe that The United States of America is the only place there is.

Fry: "What do we care? We live in the United States."
Leela: "The United States is part of the world."
Fry: "Wow, I have been gone a long time."

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Tyrannosaur]

I'm almost in complete agreement. But child porn is a strong counterexample in my mind. Some content should be very illegal to distribute or possess. And extremely illegal to produce.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[exomondo]

People keep using these words but do not seem to understand what they mean.

A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.

A judge ruling that search engines must de-index sites offering counterfeit wares is stupid and practically unenforceable, but not censorship.

let's hear your definition of censorship then.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Grumbleduke]

US companies like Rolex, Chanel (the company in the ruling), Gucci, Prada or any of the other notorious anti-counterfeiting companies?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[betterunixthanunix]

My view on the child pornography issue is this: the danger lies with people who abuse children. Possessing child pornography does not prove that one is a child abuser, nor does fantasizing about child abuse. In the computer age, where data is rapidly copied between systems, distributing anything indicates nothing at all.

We live in an age of rapid, global communication -- the old economic arguments about possession fueling production simply do not apply anymore. The fact that most people find child pornography to be disgusting is no reason to make it illegal to possess. New technologies necessitate a new approach to prosecuting child molesters, and we need to make sure that we are actually prosecuting child molesters and not just picking up low-threat people who have some child porn on their hard drives (which in all likelihood was downloaded without any transaction or trade).

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[shadowofwind]

The grandparent's assertion that Chinese political censorship is "much less harmful" than American commercial censorship, and his suggestion that people who disagree value 'stuff' over human life, is nonsense on stilts. My impression was that's what the AC was pissed about, not the statement that most Chinese support censorship.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the 'maintaining order' argument, knowing something about how big a problem disorder has been in the past, such as with the Taiping rebellion. But it appears to me that much of the censorship is more about shielding corrupt bureaucrats from accountability. Also, much of the 'maintaining order' talk appears to me to be code for 'keeping provinces like Tibet inside China', which is part of why its so hard for political freedom to get any traction. (Obviously I'm not Chinese. My household is about 70% Chinese.)

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[lgw]

In a truly capitalistic society, there is no such thing as counterfeit goods, just goods for sale.

Of course there are crazy people who call themselves libertarians and believe this, but then many of them also believe that Obama can't produce a birth certificate because he's a Reptoid shape-shifter from Mars.

Rational, sane people who believe in free markets expect the government to protect consumers (and companies!) from fraud. Also, to enforce contracts, and to provide standard weights and measures, and stardards for doing business where contracts are implied, not explicit.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Jibekn]

Caveat emptor,

If its too good to be true, it is.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[ukemike]

Child porn has been censored in the US for decades. Has it led to political censorship yet? Nope. Again, you're insane. Paranoid, specifically.

If you think there isn't political censorship in the US then you aren't paying much attention. Of course I don't believe that banning child porn has lead to our political censorship. In fact we, in the US, have always banned some content by law, but we're much less restrictive than we used to be. So the long term trend has actually been to increase the types of expression that are legal. So the slippery slope theory doesn't fit with the available data.

Now political censorship does indeed happen, but it isn't scary big government doing it to us, it is our media. We have 6 or is it 5 now, corporations that own something like 90% of all the media. There are many important news stories every year that are simply never covered here. Take for instance Iceland's revolution that started in 2009. The people of a well off western democracy rose up against their government and are now rewriting their constitution. Why? Because they were unwilling to accept the burden of the private debts of their country's banking industry. Now regardless of whether you think this is a good thing doesn't matter, it is a really big story, and it was ignored. Unless you knew to go looking for the story you probably missed it. I mostly did. It got coverage in terms of finance. "Iceland might default on it's debt" "Icleland Bank Defaults Leave Many Brits With No Savings" etc.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[jbolden]

It is illegal to engage in trademark infringement. It is illegal to sell goods known to be infringing. Goods engaging in trademark infringement can be seized, and often are without the merchant being compensated.

It is not illegal however to publish a directory of where one can find infringing goods. That's the analogy to the listing.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[jbolden]

A Rolex replica doesn't perform like a Rolex under real conditions. For example Rolex has fantastic quality water seals and is safe to use under high pressure diving, or in the shower (which is rare for a watch). The fakes will not hold up to that kind of use.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[jbolden]

How is a judge ruling requiring de-indexing not censorship? The judge is saying that true and correct information can be decimated so as to achieve a government objective.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[jbolden]

How is trademark enforcement anti capitalistic? Capitalism is not anarchy, fraud is illegal.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[jbolden]

You aren't that is settled law. Counterfeit goods are trademark violations and fraud. Committing or assisting in acts of fraud for money is fraud.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Penguinisto]

Let's just keep it at illegal to produce. Open them and their entire families to civil lawsuits with crushing fines by any and all victims (and/or families thereof). Execute them if you feel the need.

However, any law that restricts possession or broadcast of *any* data, no matter how revolting or dangerous it may be, should be avoided at all costs. The only exception I can think of involves governmental secrets, but only because those who share them voluntarily obligated themselves before accessing that data.

That way, you don't have as much collateral damage against innocent websites, folks who stumble across the wrong search result, or folks who aren't technically inclined enough to fully encrypt their wireless access points against strangers. ...and as a bonus, you don't need to push anything down any slippery slopes, and can get rid of any bad precedents.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[mjwx]

They're banning illegal counterfeit goods to protect consumers

Protect consumer from what? What is so dangerous in a cheap counterfeit Coco Channel purse or a Rolex replica?

They protect you by ensuring that the corporations you serve can make more profit from the meagre pittances they pay you.

Now stop arguing and go buy something like a good little serf, consumerism brings victory or some such.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[joppeknol]

That's a strong statement. Are you sure?

So you think it would be allowed for me to spread information about your pedophiliac activities* including photographs, together with your address and a strong advertisement that child abusers should be killed.

It's only tangentially touching the topic here. Even if you believe some information must not be spread, you can still argue what kind of information and why. I am just wondering whether the slashcrowd really follows a quite extreme no-content-should-be-illegal stance and whether they realize all consequences.

*There is no need for information to be actually true. For the sake of argument, also assume that I am a mega-corporation with money, access to media and photoshop artists.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[mjwx]

Protect consumer from what? What is so dangerous in a cheap counterfeit Coco Channel purse or a Rolex replica?

OK, a serious answer, there are dangerous goods that can cause harm. Poorly made products that can be explosive, combustible, toxic or otherwise harmful. But despite the cries to the contrary, most counterfeit goods do not fall into this catagory. Most products that fit into this catagory are filtered out using existing import laws designed to prevent the importation of goods that are explosive, combustible, toxic or otherwise harmful (think of the Chinese milk that was combined with melamine).

There are some stories going around the Mainstream Media here in OZ about how cheap imported phones (most agencies said cheap, not counterfeit) are anything from "fire risks" to "potentially explosive". I suppose it's just a coincidence that the big phone manufacturers/telco's have just started their Chrimbo advertising blitz. Oh how much I hate this time of year.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[mjwx]

Oh, the irony! (for those who don't wanna click even on a Wikipedia link: Baidu is a Chinese search engine and is one, and probably the, worst at censorship of all search engines.)

How do you say "WOOOOSH" in Mandarin?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[dotancohen]

If you don't want your search results filtered by US, use Yandex or alternatively Baidu.

Let me reword that:
Americans, if it is uncensored speech that you are looking for, then ditch the American service provider and use this Russian one. Or this Chinese one.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[kikito]

So I can choose between US, Russia, or China filtering. Sweet.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Errol backfiring]

Quite simple. Each search engine has words that should not be indexed (like common words, such as "the"). So simply add "Chanel" to the list.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[misiu_mp]

How trustworthy are those polls? Everything official in China is controlled by the government. If the polls are not right out falsified, then I certainly doubt the honesty of the respondees.
If your totalitarian government after brutally crushing opposition, with a smoking gun turns over to you and asks if you have a problem with them, what would you say?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[c0lo]

A Rolex replica doesn't perform like a Rolex under real conditions. For example Rolex has fantastic quality water seals and is safe to use under high pressure diving, or in the shower (which is rare for a watch). The fakes will not hold up to that kind of use.

And this is dangerous exactly how?

It's cheap (thus won't bankrupt you and let your kids starving) and, in the greatest majority of cases, the owner knows it is replica anyway - so it may be less tempted to take a deep dive with it (how many of the replica buyers are deep divers anyway?)

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[makomk]

Except that chances are there was no fraud - most likely the sites sold their goods as "replicas" of expensive designer items, which is exactly what they were.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

The danger is that you cannot have premium brands without trademark law. It would become impossible to build a reputation as a company. Only people would be able to build reputations, and only in cases where there is direct contact between people.

Companies that people here care about that would be bankrupt in a heartbeat without trademark law would include apple, lenovo, redhat, canonical, ...

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

This was a court case. So

1) defendants were informed, to the satisfaction of the court, at least 2 months in advance (probably more)
2) if they responded they would have had the right to demand the court case come to them (within US territory of course) or appoint a representative
3) this is a civil case at this point, not a criminal one, so the judge does *not* have the right to "track down the person" using law enforcement (at this point in the proceedings), everything has to be done by, essentially, looking the guys up in the phone book and asking companies to inform their clients of the case (which registrars generally do)
4) the defendants didn't bother to show up at all, nor did they even bother to tell the court why they couldn't be there. And frankly, at this point even saying "the dog ate the first draft of my speech" would have gotten them a 2 month delay

I'm sure you can understand that given that this happened, the court did not want to spend big resources or make big concessions on behalf of the defendants. Do you truly find this strange ?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[sincewhen]

Yes, US companies like Chanel !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanel
"Chanel S.A. (English: /nl/, French: [anl]) is a French fashion house..."

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[micheas]

A warning for people using yandex for English searches.

Unfortunately yandex doesn't seem to try and detect if the site is using a cms and if so which one, which means that, on English sites, it tends to prioritize aggregated pages on sites, and under-emphasize the single entry pages.

The effect is that with yandex I tend to be one extra mouse click from where I want to go, if the search is for an English lexicon.

As long as you are not searching for English words or cognates of English words, you probably won't notice, which would explain why they don't keep their spider for crawling themes directories.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[micheas]

Historically, the US attitude towards knockoffs has been to embrace them with open arms.

In the song Yankee Doodle, Macaroni does not refer to pasta, but to an expensive Italian hat with a signature feather on it. Hence the line "...stuck a feather in his hat and called it Macaroni"

It's interesting to watch a societies laws change as the country goes from a nation that thrives on innovation and change to one vested in the status quo that any change, no matter how much good it will be done in the long term faces huge opposition For example copyright has gone from 16 years for books and maps (newspapers, magazines, posters, paintings, fliers, and prints had no copyright protection.) to 75 plus life of the author for anything with slightest amount of creativity involved in its making.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Counterfeit is based on trademark laws, not copyright laws.

Chanel probably doesn't have much use for copyright.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Then you have nothing to fear from "it's illegal to posses child-porn" laws. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you'll get thrown in jail for accidentally doing something that somewhat resembles what is declared illegal.

You need 3 things to convict someone with laws like these
1) he must have violated a law
2) someone must have suffered damage as a result of this
3) there must be intent

So while it may be true that you're "over the line" on point 1), it will be very hard to prove 2) since you didn't pay for it and were grossed out by it, and 3) is impossible. What you're doing does not really fall in the danger zone.

As long as you don't accidentally download big amounts 3-4 times or over a large period of time or sell it or something, you have nothing to be afraid of.

(yes I know there are laws where you are convicted whether or not there was intent. Please keep in mind that unreasonable amounts of negligence are considered to constitute a weak form of intent. The basic principles behind the law are pretty well thought out (unlike many more recent laws))

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

So you mean you would like to make Americans perfectly at liberty to pay someone else to abuse children sexually, as long as the actual abuse does not happen within American borders (e.g. more than 11 km offshore).

I can only hope you see the problem.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Haedrian]

Yet.

We can already block the sales of products because they infringe copyrights on being rectangular. Why shouldn't we take it a step further and stop them advertising them?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Richard_at_work]

Would you fly on a "Boeing"?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[xelah]

And... what? Will the link explode? Or will the cheap Rolex replica strangle the owner? Just who is actually in danger and need protection?

Smug people who want to shout to the world 'I'm so wealthy that I can afford to spend $5000 on a watch that keeps time less well than one which cost $100' and are now faced not just with the response 'Do you know that you're a gullible idiot?' but also the response 'And it's probably a replica anyway'.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[thejynxed]

1) I doubt a single defendant was informed. After all, these sites were almost entirely registered and owned by people outside of the USA.

2) They get to respond, AFTER the domain has already been seized and given to someone else with no compensation.

3) Seeing as how this is a Civil Case, your first point should have been not only true, but stressed by the judge. It was neither, and the domain transfer damned sure shouldn't have been allowed until AFTER the case was completely resolved.

4) Showing up, telling the court, etc, all depends upon them having been notified to begin with. Which in these cases, they are NOT until after ICE has made it's seizure announcements and the domains have already been handed off to someone else.

I find it strange more people aren't outraged at the lack of due process or due compensation, even when it comes to sites with "questionable" activity.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Rich0]

Well, according to Frontline the airlines have been cutting costs on maintenance and there is a serious problem with counterfeit parts. The government seems pretty content NOT to crack down on such things, but to focus instead on making sure that people who pay $1000 for a purse can rest assured that nobody else with a similar-looking purse can get theirs for $25.

As long as the products are advertised as "replicas" there is no harm to the consumer - only to certain executives.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[AmiMoJo]

While there was quite a bit of censorship in the 1950s, I would say that we are either at the same level today, or even slightly beyond that level.

There are more attempts to censor things now, but the level of successful censorship is definitely low. All the stuff you mention is accessible on the internet. The rise in attempts at censorship is partly down to a greater willingness to use lawsuits to silence critics or hide embarrassing information.

As for child pornography specifically the act of creating it is a crime, specifically child abuse. It seems like a reasonable balance to tolerate possession but prosecute creation. It isn't ideal but it also the best compromise.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[skapaft]

That should be handled by libel laws, not by restricting your ability to transmit the (mis)information.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[jbolden]

The government assumes that airlines are expert buyers. But if we start having crashes using counterfeit parts it may not just be the fraud division going after the makers.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You're seriously making the case that you can sue a foreigner with interests in the US *without telling them* ? The answer, obviously is that you can't. Granted the standards for information are necessarily lower, because the justice system has no agents outside of the US, but obviously defendants were informed.

So
1) all defendants were informed
2) they get to respond when they receive the complaints, and are asked either to come to court or appoint a representative to do so (ie. they should get a lawyer, or send anyone who can speak for them)
3) feel free to show me where the judge stressed this point ... A judge cannot use law enforcement in civil cases, never mind law enforcement outside of his/her jurisdiction.
4) the defendants were told, and didn't show up. They did not bother to defend their domains. Simple as that. Doing that, of course, is generally not appreciated by the courts

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

At the risk of being down-modded into oblivion I have to ask: Why? What possible reason is there that censorship, once started, inevitably never stops? Let's say, hypothetically, a government decides to ban the use of the word "exquisitely". Please explain to me the harm enough to warrant automatic vehement opposition, and demonstrate to me why this well-defined piece of censorship will necessarily spread.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[betterunixthanunix]

There are more attempts to censor things now, but the level of successful censorship is definitely low. All the stuff you mention is accessible on the internet. The rise in attempts at censorship is partly down to a greater willingness to use lawsuits to silence critics or hide embarrassing information.

Do you think there were no communists in America in the 1950s, or that they were not producing any literature? Do you think that the McCarthy commission or the FBI under Hoover were not embarrassing people?

As for child pornography specifically the act of creating it is a crime, specifically child abuse. It seems like a reasonable balance to tolerate possession but prosecute creation. It isn't ideal but it also the best compromise.

Agreed.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Understanding doesn't have to be non-judgemental. Actually, let me clarify that: understanding doesn't have to remain non-judgemental. First comes understanding, then comes the judgement. When you mix up the order, that's what's commonly known as a knee-jerk.

Yes, your hypothetical argument is right. Censorship is a cultural phenomenon in the US, as is the opposition to censorship. Once you understand both, then you can begin promoting one over the other.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Kirth]

> In the song Yankee Doodle, Macaroni does not refer to pasta, but to an expensive Italian hat with a
> signature feather on it. Hence the line "...stuck a feather in his hat and called it Macaroni"

No, it refers to someone who did "the great tour", which means visited europe and its most important cities and imported "italian" style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaroni_(fashion)

And of course, Yankee Doodle is a _british_ song making fun of Yankees -- who promptly took it and made it their own ;)

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.

Of course it's censorship. If someone wants to tell people that their goods are genuine Chanel, and a Judge, in their capacity as a public servant, prevents them from doing so, it is censorship. Of course, we don't call it censorship, because the word "censorship" has some nasty fucking connotations, along the lines of 1984-esque dystopias, and something beneficial like censoring for the sake of trademarks really feels more like "protection", doesn't it?

What else is censorship without people typically calling it as such? We have libel/slander, threats, classified information, copyright (although its antiponents have taken to calling it that to invoke the afore-mentioned 1984-esque dystopian image), fraud, etc. Censorship is all around us. And for certain types of censorship, that's the way it should be.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[gfreeman]

Is indexing these sites similar to allowing their trucks to drive on the highways?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[ShanghaiBill]

Personally, I can't think of any.

So if your daughter is kidnapped and raped, and the perpetrator records the act, you would have no problem with him running the video on a billboard across the street from her elementary school?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[cheekyjohnson]

Sure. The damage has already been done (the rape). Censorship is pointless to me.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Baloroth]

I considered he might be posting it ironically.. but he got modded informative, and his other links seem serious.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[alexo]

So you mean you would like to make Americans perfectly at liberty to pay someone else to abuse children sexually, as long as the actual abuse does not happen within American borders (e.g. more than 11 km offshore).

I can only hope you see the problem.

You could have had a good argument if FICTION was not included in the definition of child pornography.

The system should be based on PROOF that a particular instance of a particular activity contributed to child abuse.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[alexo]

As for child pornography specifically the act of creating it is a crime, specifically child abuse.

You are aware that drawing stick figures in a certain way or writing certain words in a certain order is deemed by law to be creating child pornography, right? You are also aware that you can be prosecuted for creating child pornography for taking pictures of your baby.

It seems like a reasonable balance to tolerate possession but prosecute creation. It isn't ideal but it also the best compromise.

Only if the creation involves harming actual, real children.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[alexo]

By GP's logic then I could make the argument that the particular kind of censorship in the US that is being critiqued in this thread is also a cultural phenomenon above all else, and that it should be best approached from that perspective of non-judgmental understanding of "US culture" despite anyone's objection that the "culture" is a result of brainwashing, and that the torrent of +5 Insightful morally indignant posts we see in this thread being directed at the US is in fact a manifestation of their ignorance of US culture.

Do we want to go down that path?

Yes, we do.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of the US citizenry will stand for this shit is a "cultural phenomenon" and needs to be addressed before a meaningful change can take place.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[alexo]

Here, the "deleting" the websites from "all search engines" was probably some stupid language the plaintiff put in and the judge either didn't notice it or didn't think about how stupid that language is.

So having incompetent judges is OK now?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[AmiMoJo]

You are aware that drawing stick figures in a certain way or writing certain words in a certain order is deemed by law to be creating child pornography, right?

Yes, in the UK "psudo" images of children are illegal too, although the law does specify such images be more detailed than a stick figure. The law is still wrong though. As for writing it could be deemed an indecent publication, assuming you actually published it. Merely writing it is not an offence, and in fact there are many novels which feature underage sex (Lolita being the obvious one) which are not illegal.

You are also aware that you can be prosecuted for creating child pornography for taking pictures of your baby.

No, that is wrong. The law says that child pornography is an image designed to be sexually provocative. There was a case years back when the law was brought in where an artist exhibited nude pictures of her children at the beach. The police looked into it and decided not to prosecute. Of course the definition of "sexually provocative" is fuzzy and basically boils down to a judgement call by a jury, but generally speaking photos of your children in the bath or whatever are fine.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[alexo]

You are also aware that you can be prosecuted for creating child pornography for taking pictures of your baby.

No, that is wrong. The law says that child pornography is an image designed to be sexually provocative. There was a case years back when the law was brought in where an artist exhibited nude pictures of her children at the beach. The police looked into it and decided not to prosecute. Of course the definition of "sexually provocative" is fuzzy and basically boils down to a judgement call by a jury, but generally speaking photos of your children in the bath or whatever are fine.

Maybe I was fuzzy about the arrested / prosecuted angle, but still:
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/are-bathtime-photos-pornographic/
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2010/11/naked-baby-photos-lead-to-parents-arrest.html
http://www.thelocal.se/32400/20110304/

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[lgw]

In which case it should be perfectly legal - as long as they don't put the trademark logo on the bottles! This is somewhat common for perfumes - "smells like X" perfumes are legal becaus you can't copyright a scent.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[AmiMoJo]

Wrong country.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Tyrannosaur]

what?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[oldmac31310]

Well, if you have an interest in such watches and can afford to buy them you would probably steer clear of any site spelling it 'Rollex'. The correct spelling is 'Rolex'.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[oldmac31310]

Yes. So?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[jbolden]

Yeah that's a good analogy. The anti-indexing ruling is unconstitutional IMHO I don't think we agree there.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[alexo]

Wrong country.

Which one, the US (First 2 links: Arizona, Utah) or Sweden (third link)?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Coren22]

That really needed a "hold on, I hear the door ...NO CARRIER"

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[c0lo]

The main advantage Rolex has over the other watches with a high quality movement is the quality of the sealings. [snip... and so on...]

While nice and good explanations were offered, I'll reiterate my question: and exactly how this is dangerous???

You mean you consider "danger" the risk of loosing $150 by taking your replica into your shower?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[mgiuca]

Arj Barker: "If I'm more than three meters below the surface of the water, guess what I'm doing. I'm drowning to death!"

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[mjwx]

The danger is that you cannot have premium brands without trademark law. It would become impossible to build a reputation as a company. Only people would be able to build reputations, and only in cases where there is direct contact between people.

How is that dangerous to consumers? Or anyone really?

Whilst anti-counterfeiting is a "protection" that does not imply counterfeiting is a danger. It's up to brands to protect themselves, not to make me pay for their protection nor the law to shut down any one. Trademark and copyright were traditionally civil cases.

Companies that people here care about that would be bankrupt in a heartbeat without trademark law would include apple, lenovo, redhat, canonical,

LOL. Keep telling yourself that. Apple especially, if people weren't willing to overpay for the brand, they would have gone out of business a decade ago.

As for Canonical or RedHat, these business don't sell products in so far, they sell services and that is where their money comes from. So how do you counterfeit that?

Your last statement is a pretty clear indication you haven't thought about what you've said.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Macgrrl]

Rolex is a UK brand...

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[mjwx]

I considered he might be posting it ironically.. but he got modded informative, and his other links seem serious.

I can see you're new here (relatively speaking by your UID).

A few years ago, /. removed the Karma bonus from the +1 Funny mod so a lot of mods, especially us in the "pre-6 digits" club tend to use +1 informative instead to preserve the pre-change status quo.

That and Informative is the first selection in the moderation drop down and some people are lazy/dont think.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Macgrrl]

Isn't it something that occurs during office Christmas parties in the copy room?

It's linked to the following activity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh67ljIJ-_w

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[c0lo]

"If I'm more than three meters below the surface of the water because of my Rolex replica, guess what I'm doing. I'm attempting for the Darwin award !"

FTFY

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

LOL. Keep telling yourself that. Apple especially, if people weren't willing to overpay for the brand, they would have gone out of business a decade ago.

Not an apple fan I take it ? Me neither.

As for Canonical or RedHat, these business don't sell products in so far, they sell services and that is where their money comes from. So how do you counterfeit that?

Easy, you make sure every offer of redhat support anywhere is flanked by 3 offers for "redhat support", indistinguishable from the original, where everything is understaffed by very cheap labor, except the sales department. Potential customers won't be able to differentiate between the real brand and the miserably low quality copies and won't be able to contact the real redhat in practice.

Redhat (and many others) would be reduced to finding customers by word of mouth.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

What can I say about that, except "read the complaint" ? Chanel makes and defends the case that the offending websites demonstrated intent, and that they sell those fake products. They make this case about 5 times using slightly different reasoning even. They make the case that this demonstrates that chanel suffers damages, to the satisfaction of the judge.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

I don't fully understand your argument. What would such proof entail ? Obviously you cannot require a conviction for child-abuse (which would be the normal standard) as proof, since many states (e.g. islamic states) have simply legalized child abuse. Others have no justice system at all. And to make things really really complicated there are all sorts of exception cases (international waters, flights, embassies, various kinds of immunity, ...)

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Thing 1]

Not following any sort of Slashdot mindherd here or anything; I'm following the Constitution. Yes, I am sure, and agree with your other child post that spreading falsehoods are dealt with by other laws, and not at all effectively by censorship.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[AmiMoJo]

Both. I was talking about the UK.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[alexo]

I don't fully understand your argument.

My argument is that one should not equate thoughtcrime with child abuse.

Obviously you cannot require a conviction for child-abuse (which would be the normal standard) as proof

I require pointing out a specific child (by name, by picture, by geographic region, by money trail, etc.) that was harmed by the producing of the "possession".

Examples:

Yes: A picture of an actual, real child in an abusive (preferably by international law standards) situation.
No: A drawing, cartoon or digital art (no matter how sick, depraved or disgusting it is to me or you)
No: A picture of an adult that looks, dresses or otherwise appears to be underage (no matter how sick, depraved or disgusting it is to me or you)

Yes: A description of child abuse, with admissible evidence that it refers to actual events.
No: A fictional story (no matter how sick, depraved or disgusting it is to me or you)

I believe you get the general idea.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[alexo]

Both. I was talking about the UK.

In a discussion about a US judge ruling on a US case?

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[jbolden]

No being killed or being seriously hurt while diving was the danger. If your watch under water you may not be able to go up at the right speed.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[thejynxed]

1) Show me one instance where the defendants were informed BEFORE the seizure and transfer of the domains in question. I dare you. I'll be waiting the next 100 years or more as well, because it didn't happen. The entire thing relies on ICE seizing the domains without the ability of the defendants to prevent it from happening. Which you know, would happen if they were actually informed beforehand.

2) Doesn't change the fact that they had no business interfering with a foreign entity outside of their jurisdiction of rule to start with. If the groups like Chanel had a complaint, they should take it to the jurisdiction in question. How do you suppose the defendants are able to respond without the knowledge that their domains were pre-emptively seized and transferred to a 3rd party until AFTER the fact?

3) If you think a judge can't use law enforcement in a civil case, you've obviously never participated in any civil cases. Do you suppose the judge twinkles his fingers and the rulings magically enforce themselves, that court requests magically whisk their way about?

4) The defendants were told formally (if at all), after the fact. They didn't bother defending their domains because their domains had already been seized and transferred, prior to any court ruling one way or the other. Good luck getting your property back once the government already took it and gave it to a 3rd party.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[ewanm89]

Pretending rioters don't exist does nothing to actually stopping riots from happening.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[splutty]

No..

Someone going diving with a replica Rolex expecting it to function like a real one is a typical example of Darwinism in action.

If you do that, you deserve all the laughter aimed at your bloated, floating corpse as far as I'm concerned.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Rich0]

Erm... What about aftermarket improvements to "part" designs???

I'm not talking a solid-fuel booster on a 747 but there are always things that can be improved. Think about the jobs this would "create!" Lots of people/companies improving on whatever they feel like trying to improve, a testing industry for quality assurance of the parts, a unit testing industry for assurance/specification of parts compatibility, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

I'm not an expert on FAA regs, but I imagine that aftermarket parts are completely legal - as long as you have the necessary documentation to show that the plane will be airworthy with them installed. In practice they probably don't exist in most cases since it is EXTREMELY expensive to certify this and you're not going to make enough money on some flap lever to warrant the expense, unless you are just going to prove equivalence to the OEM part (which isn't an improvement). The engines are probably one of the biggest exceptions to this - my understanding is that large aircraft engines are generally aftermarket, though they are installed by the manufacturer. Avionics are also something that tends to be customized - but those tend to be a package deal on really big things. In general aviation you can upgrade one radio or whatever since it isn't all integrated.

I don't believe in patents or copyright law. This "protection of ..." whatever garbage is stupid.

Proper attribution of innovation/invention/authorship/credit-where-credit-due is a must. Enforceable (esp. by the gov.) monopolies? Fascism (well fascIST).

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with patents or copyrights, unless you're talking about "design patents" which I think are pretty bogus (just use trademarks for these things when legitimate - like a logo). I am fine with closing down sites that violate trademarks - but not ones which sell replicas that are clearly advertised as such. As long as you know you're buying a Sorny instead of a Sony it is all good in my eyes. Allowing trademark violations isn't good for anybody - would you like to buy a Hitachi hard drive from Newegg or whatever only to have it fail in two weeks and Hitachi tells you to get lost because they didn't make it and won't honor the warranty? That isn't in anybody's interest - I want companies to have incentive to not make junk and build a reputation.

Patents and copyrights are an entirely different matter. They are generally abused and should be reigned in, but I have yet to see a viable alternative to be proposed - unless you want to live in a world where nobody spends more than $200k to design anything.

Re:For non US-filtered search results

[Rich0]

They are expert buyers, but that doesn't mean that they don't have a conflict of interest.

Pharmaceutical companies are expert buyers too, but that doesn't mean that they are or ought to be allowed to stick random white powders in their vats without doing due diligence to ensure that it is what it is supposed to be. Baby formula and wood glue might both pass the assay, but they aren't equivalent.

I'm not even asking for new regulations here - this stuff is ALREADY law. The government simply has to enforce it.

This just in!

[MachDelta]

Average person doesn't understand internet. Shocking details and film at 11.

Re:This just in!

[LateArthurDent]

Average person doesn't understand internet. Shocking details and film at 11.

It's a little more complicated than that. Average person doesn't understand internet, but makes decisions which require such understanding and have wide reach and consequences.

The average person doesn't understand the human body, but only surgeons get to operate on them.

Re:This just in!

[bigredradio]

I can see the headline now. Judge orders defendant to pay fine of one Internet.

Re:This just in!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, that would be an insult to average people.

Re:This just in!

[Hoi Polloi]

The judge has simply ordered that the pipes be flushed.

Re:This just in!

[tkrotchko]

Do you consider a judge an average person?

I agree the average person has no idea how the internet works. But wouldn't you expect a judge to ask for advice from an expert before issuing a ruling that on the face of it, is impossible to meet.

Re:This just in!

[DanielRavenNest]

Maybe that's true, but a judge should understand "due process of law" and "right to face your accuser" and "the court's jurisdiction stops at the US border".

By all means, confiscate counterfeit goods if they are found, and stop them from trademark infringement if they are doing that, but you cannot just forget about our hard-won liberties enshrined in the Constitution if you are a judge. Especially if you are a judge.

Re:This just in!

[thisnamestoolong]

This is the fundamental problem -- people ought not be allowed to make wide reaching decisions about things that they don't understand. We need to figure out some sort of system by which decision-makers (judges, legislators, etc) must have a working knowledge of what they are talking about. If they can't show that they know what they are talking about, their decision doesn't count. I don't go to my doctor when my transmission is acting up, nor do I ask my mechanic about health issues. It is even more critical that politicians know what they are talking about, as they get to decide what EVERYONE is and is not allowed to do.

Re:This just in!

[Archangel Michael]

I can see the headline now. Judge orders defendant to pay fine of one Bitcoin.

FTFY

Re:This just in!

[Calydor]

I'm reminded of a site I saw a few years ago with a bunch of puzzles, where you had to figure out the URL for the next puzzle by doing things like checking the page source and such. That could actually serve as an interesting basis for a series of tests to see if they understand the internet.

Re:This just in!

[Sique]

You know how a system is called, who only the ones considered worthy and able on their respective field of knowledge are allowed to make decisions? It's called "rule of the worthy" or in greek: aristokratia.

Re:This just in!

[Fluffeh]

On that note, unless I am mistaken, the "Remove links from all social media sites" actually pointless?

As the domains have been seized, I am assuming that the next time that google (or any other search engine) trawls them, the main content will be gone and they will be reindexed. Give it a month or so and the site will drop off anything relating to the fake rolexes (or whatever it sold) that it was indexed to when it was taken to court?

Re:This just in!

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, I do consider a judge to be "average person", just one who's expertise is in LAW, and not necessarily anything else, especially technology.

That is the problem we have with revering people in black robes over everyday citizens, is they end up being full of themselves and thinking they are better and smarter than "average", when the truth is, they are "average". They should take the time to learn about the consequences of their "legal" opinions before they make their rulings. The consequences of ignorance is too grotesque otherwise.

Re:This just in!

[Beardo the Bearded]

My friend runs a tube company, so we can only hope so.

Re:This just in!

[ISoldat53]

I once had a Federal judge prohibit me from saying "entered", as in "I entered the name into the database." This was in the early '80s. One would think judges would be a little more computer literate now.

Re:This just in!

[Prikolist]

It took me a few minutes to dig it out, but I think this might be it http://www.hack-test.com/

Re:This just in!

[thisnamestoolong]

But I'm not, nor would I play one on TV. If I were in a position where I had to make decisions regarding law and politics that affected millions of people, I would do everything I could to learn as much about it as humanly possible and get myself to where I was as close to an expert as I could be within the given time frame. If I could not learn enough to make an informed decision on the matter, I would then defer the decision to someone who is qualified. I see nothing of this sort in politics; they get together with their lobbyists, hear one side of the story from a clearly interested party, and then go out and vote on something of which they have no understanding (see: The Internet is not a dump truck, it's a series of tubes).

Re:This just in!

[thisnamestoolong]

Why don't we then create a specialized graduate level degree for politicians? Engineers, professors, doctors, and lawyers all (typically) require some graduate level degree, why not politicians? The decisions they make have a far wider impact. The graduate degree would simply be an additional 2 years beyond a bachelor's and would be a crash course in bioethics, technology, economics, and other academic subjects that would help the decision-making process. The goal is not to make them experts in everything, but to make sure that they know SOMETHING about what they are talking about. Right now, politicians typically know nothing about what they are legislating. If they did, SOPA would not even be on the table, and stem cell research would not be even remotely contentious.

Re:This just in!

[mjwx]

The judge has simply ordered that the pipes be flushed.

Judge found pouring Drain-o into an Ethernet port.

Re:This just in!

[u38cg]

Because we have a much simpler arrangement, where if a politician turns out to be incomepetent we can vote them out.

Re:This just in!

[Haedrian]

You want: tekhne - meaning skill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

all your bases are belong to us

[hguorbray]

but, but...we own the world...Jesus said so... and we have the debts and the enemies to prove it!

I'm just sayin

Re:all your bases are belong to us

[CmdrPony]

Yes, and at least US still has freedom of speech!

Disclaimer: Free Speech valid only in participating areas and Free Speech Zones. May be revoked at will for reasons of fear, political power, religious, ethnic or economic sensibilities. Not valid in airports or theaters. Subject to taxation and regulation. Can be exercised only with permission of media owners when applicable. Not for use afte 9:00 PM local time in town squares, plazas or Wall Street. Identification required. May not be used in the face of law enforcement. May not be used to express politically embarrassing information in wiki form in front of the world at large. Penalties will be incurred if anyone considers said free speech to be promoting of terrorism, or is considered annoying to monied interests, or is enacted by too many people in a public place. Does not apply in the context of an employer/employee relationship. Free speech may not be encrypted in certain areas; check your local laws. Subject to revocation at will by government and corporate interests. Additional fees may apply.

Re:all your bases are belong to us

[jd2112]

Free speech with the purchase of any congressman.

Re:all your bases are belong to us

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Save the world! Destroy America, before it's too late!

Oh no! Now Slashdot will be listed as a TERROR SITE. Don't delete us, Joe!

Re:all your bases are belong to us

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Do not taunt Free Speech.

Re:all your bases are belong to us

[Darinbob]

Caution: consult your doctor before applying Free Speech. May cause drowsiness.

Re:all your bases are belong to us

[Stan92057]

No not splashdot,just you

Re:all your bases are belong to us

[markass530]

do you really think people should be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater?

Re:all your bases are belong to us

[makomk]

If by "yell fire in a crowded theater" you mean "argue against conscription for a brutal and pointless war in which millions died, an obviously political form of speech" - which is what the case that phrase came from was about - then I think you'll find a lot of people do. Strange that.

Re:all your bases are belong to us

[ZWoz_new]

do you really think people should be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater?

Yes, of course! Yelling is one thing, causing damage and dangering life is another matter, what can be basis for arrest and prosecution.

Re:all your bases are belong to us

[AmiMoJo]

Is it the fault of the person shouting or the idiots who panic and cause a stampede?

This is a very slippery slope. Currently it is illegal in the UK to incite racial or religious hatred. The definition of what constitutes incitement is not given, it is up to a judge and jury to decide. It also makes people responsible for the actions of others based on their interpretation of what was said.

Re:all your bases are belong to us

[Builder]

Actors do it all the time!

Re:all your bases are belong to us

[JimFive]

People ARE allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. They are not, however, protected from the consequences of doing so. If there are no panic-induced injuries then there will be no (legal) consequences.
--
JimFive

PS: I hate that particular example, a much better example of legitimate restriction on speech is that of slander or harassment.

Re:all your bases are belong to us

[JesseMcDonald]

If there are no panic-induced injuries then there will be no (legal) consequences.

And if there are any panic-induced injuries then they should (legally) be the responsibility of the ones who panicked and crushed or trampled others in their haste to save themselves, not the person who yelled "Fire!", regardless of their intentions. That sort of behavior isn't acceptable even if there really is a fire.

That person could be subject to civil penalties for violating their contract with the owner of the venue, however. That's a property and contract issue, not a freedom-of-speech issue.

PS: I hate that particular example, a much better example of legitimate restriction on speech is that of slander or harassment.

Harassment law isn't so much about speech as it is about forcing others to listen. Whatever you're actually saying, you can't inflict it on others against their will without violating their right of self-ownership. Laws against slander/libel/defamation, on the other hand, are a form of censorship. They're also counter-productive. There are few better ways to lend someone's lies legitimacy than trying to shut them up with a court order. You need to challenge them in public, not in a courtroom.

Dont do it man!

[Kenja]

Thats the History Eraser Button!

which is the only thing that can remove stuff form the internet.

GoDaddy?

[cultiv8]

That was good enough for Judge Kent Dawson to order the names seized and transferred to GoDaddy

Danica Patrick should be so happy.

FTFA

[bigredradio]

In addition, a total ban on search engine indexing was ordered, one which neither Bing nor Google appears to have complied with yet.

Yeah, good luck with that one judge.

USA! USA! USA!

[HangingChad]

We still have the biggest army so we rewl the internets machine!

This is a harbinger of SOPA

[rsborg]

See what Venkat Balasubramani says about this [1], in detail

An injunction requiring Google to "de-list" sites is one remedy which SOPA expressly makes available, and ordering the registry to transfer domain names to GoDaddy and ordering GoDaddy to update the DNS records is in effect achieving another remedy which SOPA creates. The fight against SOPA may be a red herring in some ways, since IP plaintiffs are fashioning very similar remedies in court irrespective of the legislation. Thus, even if SOPA is defeated, it may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory--opponents may win the battle but may not have gained much as a result.

[1]: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/11/court_oks_priva.htm

Re:This is a harbinger of SOPA

[Mashiki]

Obviously we need to create a giant P2P/anonymously indexed search engine with this type of shit going on. I honestly expect that various EU countries will be the next to push for SOPA type legislation to keep the commoners in check as the entire EU disintegrates, and the powers that be at the top try to grab more, and bring everyone more fully under their control like greece and italy.

Re:This is a harbinger of SOPA

[StikyPad]

It's not a red herring. Few would dispute that judges already have the powers enumerated in SOPA/PROTECT IP. The problem is that these bills would allow seizure *without* judicial oversight. Merely being accused would be enough.

Yes, the judge in this case was overbroad in his decision, but that doesn't mean it will stand, or that it was a bad decision on the face of it. Although why anyone outside of US jurisdiction would bother to challenge the ruling is another question entirely.

Re:This is a harbinger of SOPA

[jbolden]

Already exists http://yacy.net/en/

Ah the good ol days

[hellkyng]

I liked the days when people were afraid if they touched the computer too much it would explode, now they run crazy touching and deleting and legislating like coked out cats.

A Guinness world record...

[tryptogryphic]

...for legal ruling in the midst of ignorant and intellectual squalor on the matter, on behalf of the moronic judge at hand.

Dear god somebody kill off or at least properly educate these senile corpses before they ruin things more than they already are with all this blatant stupid.

domains seized and transferred to a new registrar

[wisnoskij]

So they are taking the domains and blacklisting them.
Good luck for the next guy who buys these domains, what a way to ruin a business, buy a domain that is court ordered not to appear in any social networking or search.

Meatspace equivalent?

[brusk]

Often, when a court does something like this it's because the real world analogy makes sense, but doesn't translate well into electronic contexts. Here it seems to be the opposite: the meatspace equivalent would be to not only shut down a business that is selling counterfeit goods, but also to order that the business be delisted from the Yellow Pages, at the expense of the phone book publisher. I'm confident that this judge would not have done that, but probably imagined that the company is responsible for its presence in search engine results the way it would be responsible for buying advertising space.

US Immigration & Customs Enforcement

[cosm]

Overreach much? Here we have ICE, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, with their own squads dedicated to protecting intellectual property. I quote this straight from the horses mouth:

WASHINGTON — To mark the official beginning of the online holiday shopping season, known as Cyber Monday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center), the Department of Justice and the FBI Washington Field Office have seized 150 website domain names that were illegally selling and distributing counterfeit merchandise.

source

Not only are there multiple alphabet soups working in collaboration on this, but taxpayer dollars, to use a talking point, tax payer dollars are being used to protect the profits of companies that a) people buying cheap counterfeits don't usually have money to buy the high dollar stuff or choose not to and b) many companies hide their profits overseas to avoid all the tax's imposed on them while simultaneously lobby congress to make import/export easier with the slave friggin labor used to make these fucking pointless articles of consumer whoredom. National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, ie, America production and creation capacity has been reduced to rubbish so we'll sue/block/censor anything that threatens the bank accounts. I'm not a 99%'er and all that jazz; this is a problem between stupid electorate continually rel-electing politicians who do not represent the people and are easily bought out. There are of course many more problems than this, but to boil it down this story is just icing on the turd-cake that will be served to future historians who write about the downfall of America.

Boggles the mind on one hand, on the other hand, well, nothing new under the sun, eh?

Re:US Immigration & Customs Enforcement

[Obfuscant]

tax payer dollars are being used to protect the profits of companies

They are also being used to protect the people who don't realize that the "Guchi" handbag they are buying isn't a real Gucci. While I would agree that someone who buys a "Guchi" bag probably ought to know better, I'd say that someone who buys a counterfeit "Gucci" has no reason to expect it to be a counterfeit and thus an expectation that they are not being ripped off. Someone who is selling counterfeit goods is banking on the name of the product and not the quality, so while the victim does get something with a "Gucci" label, the quality is not what they paid extra for.

this is a problem between stupid electorate continually rel-electing politicians who do not represent the people and are easily bought out.

I think your view is the one that isn't quite representative of the people. People who don't want to buy, e.g., Gucci, are still free to do so, and nobody is stopping them. Nobody is stopping someone from selling handbags that are quite nice but don't pretend to be Gucci. This is not an issue of stopping someone from selling a bag that looks like a Gucci but is clearly identified as not being one ("counterfeit" is not the same as "knock off".) I think most people are quite happy that someone in charge is trying to get rid of places and people that are selling counterfeit goods, and not just because those counterfeit goods harm the authentic manufacturer. They also harm the consumer, who has spent good money on a poor product, which means they aren't spending that money on anything else.

but to boil it down this story is just icing on the turd-cake that will be served to future historians who write about the downfall of America.

You have it backwards. To do nothing about counterfeit goods is antithetical to what the US is based on. To do nothing is what would help the downfall. "Property rights" is firmly established in US law and history, and is why we prospered as a nation to start with. "Here's a plot of land, homesteader, work hard and it is yours." Contrast that with "here's a community plot of land, occupant. Show up occasionally and you'll get a share of the food it produces."

"Pretend your product is made by someone else who has built a reputation for quality and profit at the expense of them and the consumer" is more like the latter than the former. I have no problem with the legal system going after counterfeiters. None at all. They have no right to use the trademarks and names of reputable companies. When I go into a restaurant and buy a "Coke", I expect that it will BE a product of the Coca Cola company, not "Bob's Coke" or even "Coak". That position doesn't have anything to do with IP or patents or copyrights, just with fraud.

Re:US Immigration & Customs Enforcement

[cheekyjohnson]

To do nothing is what would help the downfall.

I don't see how such a small thing could be the downfall of... much of anything.

"Property rights" is firmly established in US law and history, and is why we prospered as a nation to start with.

What does that have to do with counterfeit goods?

Re:US Immigration & Customs Enforcement

[ToasterMonkey]

Overreach much? Here we have ICE, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, with their own squads dedicated to protecting intellectual property. I quote this straight from the horses mouth:

_Customs_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customs

The flow of everything but people (Immigration) into/out of a country.

Come on folks, this isn't hard.

Re:US Immigration & Customs Enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

You have it backwards. To do nothing about counterfeit goods is antithetical to what the US is based on. To do nothing is what would help the downfall. "Property rights" is firmly established in US law and history, and is why we prospered as a nation to start with. "Here's a plot of land, homesteader, work hard and it is yours." Contrast that with "here's a community plot of land, occupant. Show up occasionally and you'll get a share of the food it produces."

"Pretend your product is made by someone else who has built a reputation for quality and profit at the expense of them and the consumer" is more like the latter than the former. I have no problem with the legal system going after counterfeiters. None at all. They have no right to use the trademarks and names of reputable companies. When I go into a restaurant and buy a "Coke", I expect that it will BE a product of the Coca Cola company, not "Bob's Coke" or even "Coak". That position doesn't have anything to do with IP or patents or copyrights, just with fraud.

Not really. Prior to 1900, the US was hounded by foreign powers for ignoring IP rights. The textile industry was started on 'pirated' technology. The same goes for most other industries and products from 1800-1920. Once the US became an IP holder, things changed.

The Chinese (and others) are just playing the same game. Only difference is that the first 12-hour production run of the day may be for the actual IP/trademark holder.

Re:US Immigration & Customs Enforcement

[dotancohen]

When I go into a restaurant and buy a "Coke", I expect that it will BE a product of the Coca Cola company, not "Bob's Coke" or even "Coak". That position doesn't have anything to do with IP or patents or copyrights, just with fraud.

You picked probably the worst example that you could:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola#History

/News flash...

[Lumpy]

Judge lets the world know he is a complete and utter idiot.

sad part is that he will throw a hissy fit that everyone n the planet does not obey him, and he will not bother to get an education to make sure he does not sound like a complete tool again in the future.

It's just a series of tubes

[fragfoo]

Someone should introduce the Internet to this judge.

Judge Smith, this is the Internet.

Internet, this is Judge Smith.

Now f*ck off.

Bringing down /.

[Hentes]

Indeed, a cursory search through the list of offending domains turns up poshmoda.ws, a site registered in Germany.

You dirty criminal pirate, how dare you link to the Site Which Shall Not Be Named?! Now they are going to sue /. too!

it was better when....

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet was better before the legal system was aware of it. No politicians, no lawyers, no judges. It was run by engineers, for engineers, and everything *seemed to be fine*.

Now....? It's becoming a clusterfuck, because people who don't understand it seem to think they should be able to control it anyway.

Re:it was better when....

[betterunixthanunix]

people who don't understand it seem to think they should be able to control it anyway.

This is a direct consequence of the fact that people who do not understand the Internet also happen to be its principle users.

Huh?

[mr_lizard13]

An American, thinking that the US = The World?

What a surprise.

Hey, hey you, yeah you, Judge!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you!

- The rest of the world.

Can't wait for the 2nd decentralized age to happen.
Fuck ICANN too.

Always register overseas

[efalk]

This is why you never register your domain in the U.S. For maximum safety, host it overseas too. See http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/2008/03/dont-register-or-host-your-domain-in-us.html

Since when is 3/228 a good sample size?

[forkfail]

Here's the bit that gets to me:

(A recent November 14 order went after an additional 228 sites; none had a chance to contest the request until after it was approved and the names had been seized.)

How were the sites investigated? For the most recent batch of names, Chanel hired a Nevada investigator to order from three of the 228 sites in question. When the orders arrived, they were reviewed by a Chanel official and declared counterfeit. The other 225 sites were seized based on a Chanel anti-counterfeiting specialist browsing the Web.

Re:Since when is 3/228 a good sample size?

[Fluffeh]

What part of "anti-counterfeiting specialist" don't you get?

It's not like the courts care anymore. Someone said that such-and-such website was infringing, so it had to be taken down, then it was. It doesn't even matter if the one doing the complaining admits to lying and not doing any research on the matter. The stuff still gets taken down.

Irony?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just freakin' great. I mean...

Fucking. *Brilliant*. Like putting a fire out by trying to stomp it out with explosives brilliant. I wonder if the irony of implementation has even occurred to them.

So...uh...since I wrote an experimental search engine about 6 years ago--can someone provide me with a list of the censored sites? Either the judge or Chanel? I wouldn't want to crawl and index anything inappropriately.

In fact, since this will undoubtedly be difficult to maintain, they'd better host it as an RSS feed for me. I'll even accept other RESTful services like well defined JSON.

Just to be helpful, I'm willing cache and redistribute it for them so everyone knows what to censor...

Implications are great... fraudulent goods will want decently descriptive domain names. And anybody can just run their finger down the list and go to 'chanelknockoffs.ch' to get their fix...

Of course, such a listing would also have to contain the last known IP address to make it easy for me to avoid routing to them in ipv6 tunnels...

So this guy's prevented what exactly... a bit of content inspection? On some domains? In some countries? Let's see you enforce that at badu "your honor"

kdawson

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anybody actually read the Ars article? The judge's name is Kent Dawson...

Write.

[Pahroza]

Perhaps Slashdot readers/posters could assist with educating the judge on the finer technical details that make such a ruling impossible to comply with.

If writing letters and mailing them sounds too daunting, some enterprising /,er might enlighten the judge by sending the letter to the HP printer he undoubtedly has in his office.

China

[Anonymous Coward]

even though china has a larger standing army then the US....

That's nice. According to [1], the Buffalo Bills offence has the highest average mass per player of any team in the AFC, and are getting their arses kicked. Most battles aren't won or lost by the Zapp Brannigan "wave after wave of men" strategy.

More to the point, China's navy is all but useless. Granted it is gaining power in leaps, but any competent strategic assessment will conclude that it can't hold its own in any deep water engagement with... well, anyone major really. Even Russia's navy (at least the part that managed to bob to the surface) outclasses China's in any meaningful metric. China's force projection ability is really limited to annoying its neighbors.

[1] http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=merron/041124_rankings

Does the court have the authority to do this?

[Adrian Lopez]

Does the court really have the authority to force "all Internet search engines" and "all social media websites" to remove these domain names from their respective websites? It seems like too broad a target for an injunction, but perhaps I'm mistaken?

Re:Does the court have the authority to do this?

[Adrian Lopez]

Does the court really have the authority to force "all Internet search engines" and "all social media websites" to remove these domain names from their respective websites? It seems like too broad a target for an injunction, but perhaps I'm mistaken?

Just to clarify, I am assuming such orders would not apply to companies outside the US. The question is whether or not the court has the authority to force all US-based search engines and all US-based social media websites to block the domains in question. That the judge thinks he does have the authority is very troubling.

Re:Does the court have the authority to do this?

[jbolden]

It is a Nevada judge. It would apply to those search engines that do business in Nevada at best. Even for those that do, there is some question about that part of their business not being in Nevada. Further there are due process concerns.

It is too broad and beyond his reach. A poor ruling.

Re:Does the court have the authority to do this?

[Rich0]

Jurisdiction is purely a practical matter - your ability to issue orders and have them obeyed depends on your ability to make life unpleasant for those who choose not to obey.

US courts give judges incredible amounts of power to enforce their decisions. Usually they don't bother, but this guy could do things like:

1. Order the state police to nap Google executives if they are spotted within the state.
2. Order any Google-owned assets in the state to be seized.
3. Issue warrants that other states may or may not enforce.
4. Perhaps go after people who do business with Google.

If you don't do any business in Nevada then there isn't much the guy can do but mail you nasty letters, or mail nasty letters to your own government asking them to do something bad to you. However, the ability of even state governments in the US to project force is fairly considerable.

Re:domains seized and transferred to a new registr

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be an interesting place to run a tor node or torrent site.

It can't be infringing...my site is court ordered not to appear anywhere!

http://ChanelFakes.com

[sanzibar]

Take that!





The Fine Print: The following link is owned by whoever owns it. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Re:people ought not be allowed

[randy of the redwood]

We need to figure out some sort of system by which decision-makers (judges, legislators, etc) must have a working knowledge of what they are talking about.

That system is already in place. Legislators rely on experts to bring them up to speed on the specific issues at hand.

We call them lobbyists.

System sucks, don't it.

Got Jurisdiction? Due Process?

[MarkvW]

Nonparties are never bound by court orders.

Ruling has no value in real life

[morbingoodkid]

Even if the ruling is diligently applied by all parties concerned. It would take an operator less than 24 hours to get his business up and running again. These businesses uses spam for marketing anyway. So new domain and a couple of spam shots later and my new web site is as busy as ever. The ruling firstly don't make sense and secondly is not a remedy and will not prevent the offending party from continuing it's business so why waste the money on this order.

Does He Have To Spell It Out?

[cmholm]

The summary and a number of the comments may be going a wee bit overboard while lambasting the order of the court. Any court has a certain jurisdiction, dependent on the constitutions, legislative acts, treaties, and case law within that jurisdiction. How a NY state judge rules doesn't matter to me in HI unless I enter or transact business with NY. This is understood by the NY judge, and is assumed when writing the decision.

Likewise, I could sell material for the NSDAP on-line, and if a German federal judge doesn't like it, tough beans.

What would have caught my attention is if the text of Chanel, Inc v. Does had used the words like global or specifically stipulated a foreign search engine.

Stereotypes

[RandomAvatar]

It is people like that judge that propagate the American stereotype of being stupid and international bullies. Thankfully, I have only met peaceful Americans with a modicum of intelligence.

People who don't understand how to use "principle"

[pem]

are its principal users.

Good percident now...

[future assassin]

other countries can go after US companies they think are infringing on their products and get the courts to force say Google.fr to de list those US businesses.

It get worse

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The same judge also ordered alll the people who have book marked these sites before the ruling came to remove them from their computers. And if the site has an easy to remember URL, he ordered every one in the world to forget it. And then they all have to get off his lawn too.

Bribed judge makes dumbass ruling

[ihateslashfags]

And gives no fuck, because he's getting paid and you all can go suck his dick.

Re:Bribed judge makes dumbass ruling

[alexo]

And gives no fuck, because he's getting paid and you all can go suck his dick.

The country (any country) would be much better if every official with such attitude would have aforementioned appendage forcefully ripped off.

Explain a judge's judicial power to me

[MobyDisk]

I don't understand judicial power in these types of things.

What power does a judge have to order a company to modify it's database? Unless that company is named as part of a lawsuit and loses the suit, what power does the judge have to compel any 3rd-party to do anything? Am I compelled by this ruling to delete any bookmarks I have? What if I run my own search engine?what

No political censorship?

[UnoriginalBoringNick]

Child porn has been censored in the US for decades. Has it led to political censorship yet? Nope. Again, you're insane. Paranoid, specifically.

Ok, how about this one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Davis

Davis was named the head of the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service in December 2008; and was fired from this job in late November or early December 2009.[20] This occurred because of an op-ed Davis wrote in the Wall Street Journal.[21] Davis criticized a preliminary report from the inter-agency review team President Obama authorized for proposing looser judicial standards when the suspects faced more serious charges.

Davis wrote: "The administration must choose. Either federal courts or military commissions, but not both, for the detainees that deserve to be prosecuted and punished for their past conduct."

More details here http://www.salon.com/2011/11/28/inside_the_attack_on_the_first_amendment/

the list

[roman_mir]

so I looked at the list in that document, names like http://www.2012-louisvuitton.net/ and http://www.spotbags.co/ and http://www.hahabags.net/ all that jazz.

If they are now posted on /. will google be forced to delist /. as well?

Didn't I just comment on this?

[RockDoctor]

Yes : link.

I haven't seen a recent survey ; what proportion of Americans have passports this decade and have travelled to the outside world? What proportion actually know that there is a world outside Gilead? (This is a ha-ha-but-serious point.)

Re:Got Jurisdiction? Due Process?

[Rich0]

Being bound or not is a practical matter.

Some warlord in Somalia can issue a court order requiring me to do something. If I intend to ignore it then if I ever go to Somalia bad things could happen to me, and if the guy is ticked enough bad things might happen to me here.

Likewise some judge in Nevada can order me to do something, and if I just ignore it they might be able to make bad things happen to me. On the other hand, I might be able to appeal to some other judge with more power to protect me (for example, if I don't live in Nevada then an appeal to the local government will prevent them from shipping me there).

Our situation is not unlike that of a serf. If some noble in the other town feels slighted by us then your only recourse in practice is to appeal to your own local noble for protection (and that "protection" was not unlike what the mob offers today). Most likely the local noble isn't going to want to start a war over you, but they will insist that they be the ones to administer the punishment since that asserts their authority over their land. Perhaps to further assert their authority they might reduce the sentence a little as well. The bottom line, however, is none of these people are really looking out for you - you're just a pawn in a game that is more about the power/relationships at the top.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What the... How is Baidu independent?

[Kamiza Ikioi]

If you don't want your search results filtered by US, use Yandex or alternatively Baidu.

Yes, if you rather have your search results filtered by Russia or China. Yeah, communist shadow filtering where you can't see the invisible hand hiding sites is SO much better than most US court filtering that are open enough to actually be published, and not themselves censored.

Yandex and Baidu are completely independant search engines.

Maybe on Bizarro World, not on Earth. Independent from aggregate results of other engines, but not independent from censorship. Baidu might possibly the most heavily filtered site on the planet.

and then they came for me

[dotar]

When do we start penalising web developers who are paid to put up sites like these?

Re:A legal judgement = the law

[Paracelcus]

Yeah, everybody knows that the Gov obeys their own laws ;-)...

Be serious man!

Re:You wouldn't

[jbolden]

First off Rolex is a diver's watch. If you mean a cheap divers watch, or a digital or whatever.... you could do that. But Rolex's are very nice looking and frankly quality wise do hold up better. I own an Omega dress watch because I used to break cheaper watches all the time. I love the quality I got. That's in addition to a nice (but not perfect) movement. Rolex is a very nice all purpose sports watch which includes being a diver's watch.

As for showing off... you are basically showing off you have money for something, you don't. In other words lying. I'm not sure why the government should aim to facilitate that.

As for knockoffs it isn't so clear. I know people who have bought watches say used only to discover they are old replicas.

Strangely prophetic

[Macgrrl]

The Paranoia rulebook is unusual in a number of ways; demonstrating any knowledge of the rules is forbidden, and most of the rulebook is written in an easy, conversational tone that often makes fun of the players and their characters, while occasionally taking digs at other notable role-playing games. Source

Re:A legal judgement = the law

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Actually western states actually mostly do obey their own laws. Especially within the justice system. Additionally, the laws governing government operations are actually very, very similar to the laws governing any company or person. The laws governing behavior of judges are MUCH more stringent than for normal persons (e.g. a judge will get a lifetime ban, both on serving as a judge or a lawyer, if a reasonable case (without proof) can be made that they committed fraud. Obviously those 2 professions are the only ones accessible for someone with a legal education, so this is quite a serious punishment).

It depends on how you want to judge, right ? You want to judge by absolutes ? Sure, western governments are a disaster. Compared to, oh, China, or islamic states, or dictatorships ? You know where this is going.