Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Feds Seized Website For a Year Without Piracy Proof

Posted by Soulskill on from the your-tax-dollars-at-work dept.

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."

21 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My favorite part is that one of the extensions was granted one week after the previous extension had expired.

    1. Re:No surprise by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

      My favorite part is that one of the extensions was granted one week after the previous extension had expired.

      "My master is always right. If my master is wrong... my master is always right. I must please my master. My master never lies. My master only wants what's best for me...." -- FBI, while handcuffed to RIAA's bed. :(

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:No surprise by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Aren't people who make false claims supposed to go to jail?

      Aren't people in government who seize things without cause, or who deny timely prosecution supposed to go to jail?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:No surprise by Genda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sadly, its become so hard to tell the who the master and the lapdog is these days. Is it a true Fascism and the Corporations are in control, in which case you just have political sock-puppets and the Government and Corporations are one and the same? Or is it still a Republic with one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel going to the highest bidder? Like I said, to close a race to tell at this point, and will probably require better minds than mine to distinguish.

      In either case, any semblance of civil rights, personal freedom, decency, dignity or real due process seem to have been tossed out the window along with anything that might once have resembled true democracy or representation.

    4. Re:No surprise by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One was on time. The next was two days late. The third was 6 days late.
      They gave back the site almost a month after the third extension expired.

      The FBI is a wholy owned subsidiary of The **AAs.
      Fuck them.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    5. Re:No surprise by alanshot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aren't people who make false claims supposed to go to jail?

      Aren't people in government who seize things without cause, or who deny timely prosecution supposed to go to jail?

      The double standards in our justice system make me sick. You or I pull this shit and we get a fine and/or contempt of court. Big business/big media pulls this crap and its no biggie.

      On a related note... See rich/famous people who "...Is expected to start [his/her] sentence in 3 weeks for [insert nonviolent federal crime here] after being convicted 6 months ago."

      Money is power, power is money. You or I get nailed for something and we get thrown in the slammer on the spot, maybe get bond that we can afford, maybe not. Later after the trial, at sentencing we are handcuffed and remanded to custody on the spot. Famous and/or rich person gets nicked for the same/similarly bad (sometimes worse) offense, and because of who they are, they are granted a delayed sentence.

      They wont delay my sentence because I am the only qualified staff member to finish a project for my private employer, but if LiLo has some contract to sign autographs at a car dealership in 3 weeks, do a playboy shoot, etc she can have all the time she needs to fulfill *HER* obligations.

  2. Okay. by BootysnapChristAlive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Okay. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      there is no gain from doing so.

      Except, of course, the tactical gain for the copyright lobbyists, who can use such seizures as examples of why we need even stronger restrictions on the Internet. They can point to these seizures and say, "See, when we try to enforce our copyrights, the awful common folk just step around the ban! Therefore, we must be allowed to turn the Internet into a fancy cable TV system!"

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  3. Same with Megaupload by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
  4. Not too bad. by wcrowe · · Score: 5, Informative

    They only violated four amendments in the Bill of Rights. No big deal.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:Not too bad. by ediron2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, it's gonna be pretty hard to 'quarter troops' in a website, webfarm, hard drive... maybe in a colo cage!?

    2. Re:Not too bad. by Tarlus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, it goes all the way up to 11.

      --
      /* No Comment */
    3. Re:Not too bad. by lightknight · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nonsense. 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. It lends to reasoning that in the days when that Amendment was first written, the allowing of soldiers (or other government members) to usurp the rights of a homeowner as well as the (often) tremendous cost of resources for feeding and caring for said soldier (and associated equipment, they certainly didn't leave their firearms outside in the rain) was a source of immense displeasure among the colonists; so much so that they went to the trouble of making it #3 of the list of Governmental Don'ts. As electronic agents do consume resources, often as parasites (consuming processor cycles, disk space, and bandwidth), to the owners of said machines, and as they are acting on behalf of the government, it could be easily argued that they fall under a violation of the 3rd Amendment.

      "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." -> Now, some people will argue that it's in a manner prescribed by law, but the reality is that they are constantly switching attacks and methods to achieve their ends, with no care for the cost or the sanctity of the homeowner. A manner prescribed in law as 'whatever it takes' would fail most judicial smell tests. Again, as such, with no third-party oversight into clandestine home-spying operations, we have a huge violation here. However, in so far as the judicial branch is a little...behind the times, I fear that the entirety of our freedoms will be obliterated by appending "online" to the end of various security legislations, which would not pass otherwise.

      I imagine someone more nuanced in the various legalities, and writings thereof, could make a good argument based off of this.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  5. RIAA math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. No recourse by Hatta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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. Re:No recourse by Jeng · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, when you have no recourse then shooting the motherfuckers starts sounding better and better.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:No recourse by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Socialised healthcare actually benefits the majority of people...
      Heavy handed copyright enforcement only benefits a very select few, often to the detriment of the majority...

      Surely the government should be there to provide useful benefits to the majority of its people, not just a select few.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  7. Re:Year of lost revenue by JobyOne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe the RIAA should have its assets seized and business halted for a year. See how they like it.

    --
    Porquoi?
  8. Let's Explain This Using FBI Logic by IonOtter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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]
  9. Re:You misrepresent the problem. by Genda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. An opportunity to nail the RIAA to the barn door by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.