Slashdot Mirror
Feds Seized Website For a Year Without Piracy Proof
bonch writes "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seized a hip-hop website based on RIAA claims of copyright infringement for prerelease music tracks. They held it for a year before giving it back due to lack of evidence. Unsealed court records (PDF) show that the government was repeatedly given time extensions to build a case against Dajaz1.com, but the RIAA's evidence never came. The RIAA has declined to comment."
My favorite part is that one of the extensions was granted one week after the previous extension had expired.
Why are we seizing websites for copyright-related matters? This is petty, a waste of manpower, a waste of time, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and despite all of this, there is no gain from doing so.
Well somewhat similar. They seized that website and caused millions of people to lose their files, but now the judge is saying the case cannot proceed, because the FBI never had authority to cease the site's servers.
Of course they don't have to win the case..... WMG tried to use a takedown notice via youtube, and that failed, so they called their politicians in D.C. and used a full seizure action instead. The FBI/politicians have driven the company out of business, just as their boss WMG desired. Yay?
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
They only violated four amendments in the Bill of Rights. No big deal.
Proverbs 21:19
They will probably make more money from that, than from active site :).
And RIAA will get wrist/checkbook slap.
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
Proof ?? If you look like a terroist, act like a terrorist, and shout like a terrorist, we don't need no stinkin warrants !!
...Dajaz1.com's lawyers are about to make some easy money off the RIAA.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
remove U$A from the World...
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Now we know who they really work for.
Let's do RIAA math:
The site had the bandwidth potential if they weren't down for users to download an average of 10 songs per second at $1.00 per song..
So $1.00 * 10 songs * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours * 365 days = $315,360,000
oops.. I meant $250,000 per song..
So $250,000 * 10 * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours * 365 days = $78,840,000,000,000
seems reasonable.. This math came out of the same place as all other RIAA math.
The real troubling fact is that we have no recourse against this sort of criminal behavior by government thugs.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1. Your Master is angry at a website, and they are telling you to break the law and take that website down.
2. They pay your salary. They make sure the bosses who give you all your toys and paychecks get elected. They have so much money, they could not spend all of it if they spent 10 million dollars a day, for the next 20 years.
3. If you do not obey, you will not have a job. And you might even wind up in jail on some trumped up charge, much like the trumped up charges you arranged for others you didn't like very much. Oh, and your Master knows about those trumped up charges against an innocent person, so maybe the charges against YOU won't be so trumped up after all.
And the final kicker...
4. You are the US government. YOU get to decide if someone can sue you for something.
So. You have...
100% immunity
100% profit.
100% job satisfaction.
100% power.
See? Math is easy.
[End Of Line]
Why are they no fines for fraudulent "claims of copyright infringement?" Heavy fines for repeat offenders.
For the same reason the federal government decided seizing legal medical marijuana pharmacies in California and Colorado makes perfect sense.
We can't have businesses earning money and generating tax revenue.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The RIAA is scum, and the Obama administration (who has appointed too many of their minions to the Justice Department) are their toadies. So who is surprised that this kind of crap is happening? It's all about fat contributions to the incumbent's election and reelection campaigns and screw over the rest of us.
Or should I tell you what I really think about all of this?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Declaration by the agent at the end. #4 1st sentence... "locating [...] material, purported to be infringing and removed due to its rights-holders request"
So the whole thing is based on MegaUpload-style "when they get a DMCA takedow they only disable the link but don't delete the data" from the RIAAFIA...
Why not clearly and explicitly implicate the First Amendment?
Its just that simple.
There has not been a single FBI investigation of congress since the Carter administration.
Why? Because Reagan signed a law banning such investigations.
Why are congress members afraid of being investigated and audited unless they're taking bribes?
Of course we want businesses earning money and generating tax revenue. Specifically, those businesses which have already earned quite a lot of money, and use that money to benefit those who make laws.
Remember that every wealthy corporation has an army of investors who stand to benefit from that corporation's increase in wealth. Policies that encourage new businesses to compete threaten that gain, so people who invest in blue chip stocks all start becoming protectionists whether they realize it or not.
It IS censorship, because invariably the list of sites to block includes many that have nothing to do with porn, including fine art nudes, nude paintings. Will Deviantart be on that list?
One only has to look at the leaked proposed Australian list to see how bad it is in real life.
The only way that you could begin to do this is to have an open list that's published, with a redress mechanism for people who's sites have been wrongly blocked. The censors hate this because then it gives people a phone directory for all the naughty sites.
We have no direct legal* recourse, but in theory we can vote out our elected officials and replace them with ones that will make sure this never happens again.
I did say "in theory."
* neither I nor /. nor its affiliates recommend or endorse seeking extra-legal or illegal recourse against the government employees directly involved in the seizing of this domain.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Re-elect No One, ever.
On the behalf of the copyright holder (or one claiming to be), and the .Gov arm of the Intellectual Property Industrial Complex will happily play its part without any proof in hand it seems..
Brave, brave new world..
Or, perhaps I just need to loosen my tinfoil hat a bit..
Let me understand the RIAA **PUBLICLY** accused the owner/company of this web-site of criminal wrong doing. But after a year, no charges were brought. And the company suffered damages and loss of its website.
Sounds like a pretty good lawsuit (against the RIAA) to me. I hope the EFF tears them a new one.
This is a great illustration of why copyright should be dealt with only in civil courts. That way they'd have to prove their case first and tale action later.
People living around the World think about the US as the place where there is the rule of law. Don't see much difference between China/US/Russia/Nigeria...
if a person (who is not a terrorist, and piracy is not that) can only be held for 48 hours without being formally charged. that web site should've also been returned within that same time frame if no charges were brought. a year is fucking ridiculous and if the feds held a random citizen who did nothing wrong for that long, lawsuits (big ones) would surely follow.
I prefer the interpretation of storing an electronic agent on someone's machine (typically located inside their house) as quartering a soldier (or in this case, his equipment) as a supreme violation of the 3rd Amendment.
Hear hear!
The main reason for the Third Amendment was that the soldier served as a spy on the activities of the people living where he was quartered. This was a major violation of the British Common Law principle that "A man's home is his castle." The consumption of resources was also significant, but secondary.
So government-mandated installation of spyware (whether clandestine or visible) is a precise electronic equivalent of quartering a military person in the home.
In Griswold v. Connecticut (the landmark case establishing a Constitutional right to privacy despite the absence of that phrase in the Constitution), Justice William O. Douglas (writing the majority opinion) "cites the amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from agents of the state".
So if such a case were to come before the court (and the appellants made this argument) we might actually see the Third Amendment interpreted to ban government spyware. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Maybe the RIAA should have its assets seized and business halted for a year. See how they like it.
You know, that's a really good idea.
If the Dajaz1.com people asked for that as part of the punitive damages, I could imagine a judge going for it.
Judges really don't like it when people or companies make a practice of abuse of process.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I say the RIAA's website should be seized for a year in compensation.
They "lied" to the FBI (That would qualify as "a federal agent" right) that they had proof that this site was doing something illegal. They never came up with the proof. That would be a criminal action, because they knew they were not able to prove anything when they made the statement. That would make them a criminal racketeering organization and the only real option for a judge would be to confiscate all their belongings and render them illegal.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
The RIAA isn't a government organization. Maybe the government should at least stop to do anything the RIAA wants until after a court case has run it's course and the RIAA has actually won, including all the possible appeals. That would save a lot of time and money, both in the court and outside.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Not only that, when the case was thrown out and the site finally returned, their official statement was:
If the site continues to operate in an illegal manner, we will consider all our legal options to prevent further damage to the music community.
They had the case thrown out, and still maintain that the site was operating in an illegal manner. Given a year to prove it, they were unable to do so, but thought they'd part with an unveiled threat.
Have the Justice Dept. go after competition in a way to make them fail. After a year most would have folded. I think people need to see the intent of DMCA, SOPA, or whatever is being implemented to crush any newcomer on the Digital Front.
SIN