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
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.
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."
Isn't it required that the site only remove the link until the whole take down procedure has cleared one way or the other?
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?
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.
Here, here!!! Pot is not illegal because its a drug... Our nation is drowning in drugs. Its because the Pharmaceutical business can't monopolize it and make a hundred billion dollars. No chance cheap effective solutions like l-tryptophan for insomnia, or pot for nausea are going to be made available when they can sell you expensive drugs with terrible side effects that require more terrible drugs to cure the side effects with even more terrible side effects, etc., etc., etc.
Adam Smith warned of the key things to beware of with any Capitalistic Economy. 1. Avoid concentration of wealth and 2. Maintain a large and healthy middle class. Simple things. Vital to the operation of the game. We just let it go to hell, that's all.
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.
We gave up Smith for Friedman, I guess because we were tired of being healthy, wealthy and wise.
Income tax and Milton Friedman ruined our system.
Asset taxes and Adam Smith could bring it back, but it's probably already too late.
Yeah, iirc they have to wait 10 days for a counter-notice.
As far as I can tell the RIAA argues "But the data was kept beyond that", and MU is saying "that's because someone else uploaded a exact duplicate and we didn't get a notice for that one".
So the question becomes... should file/video sharing sites be required to do that?
I'd say... no.
Consider the following scenario (which actually does happen):
1. User A uploads a video he created (and owns all copyrights to) to a video sharing site, sets up ad-revenue sharing.
2. User B grabs it and uploads the exact same video without permission from A (obvious violation of copyright, also deprives A of ad revenue).
3. A finds that video and sends the site a DMCA takedown notice.
4. B's video has to get blocked, notice sent, 10 days for counter notice before final removal, etc, etc...
Works as intended.
Now it seems the RIAA wants to reinterpret the DMCA to add
5. After said 10 days or whatever without a counter-notice, A's video also gets removed (hey, it's the same content, right?). Any further attempt to upload a video with identical content has also to be blocked.
Err, what?
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.
Federal law trumps state laws, as it should. And I say that as a strong supporter of the 10th Amendment.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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.
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?