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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Richard_at_work]

Would you fly on a "Boeing"?

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.

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!

[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!

[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!

[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?

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

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Do not taunt Free Speech.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

Huh?

[mr_lizard13]

An American, thinking that the US = The World?

What a surprise.

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.

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: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!

Got Jurisdiction? Due Process?

[MarkvW]

Nonparties are never bound by court orders.

Bribed judge makes dumbass ruling

[ihateslashfags]

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

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