Who says they aren't? Some of the comments said a few of the sites were involved in that exactly. How many of the sites are digital distribution (download/torrent) sites? If the focus was elsewhere, would that make online infringement less illegal (as if such a term existed)?
the anti- terrorism DHS being used for something that has nothing whatever to do with homeland security
Here's a novel idea. See if you can follow it. Imagine DHS has many, many departments and they each have varying responsibilities, some of which are directly related to homeland security and some are not. Imagine a Customs department that has the responsibility of preventing counterfeit goods and illegal copies of works from entering the US. Now imagine a small section within that department specifically has the responsibility with regard to online goods.
It was obvious these sites were selling fake goods and distributing copyrighted works.
Fake eh? I have a copy of a digital file. The checksum is the same. Now tell me, which one is the "fake" one?
The OP really should have said "fake goods OR... copyrighted works". You focused on the "fake goods" part, which obviously doesn't apply to copyright infringement for the points you listed. Nice try at a distraction, though.
Most comments have not been in defense of copyright infringement, but opposed to lack of due process.
What exactly is due process when most of the organization exists outside of your jurisdiction? We can't arrest the owner or serve him to appear in US court. Yet, his actions are allowing US citizens to violate copyright laws. The only thing we have jurisdiction over is the.com DNS resolution, right?
So is not due process getting a court order and serving it to those in the US controlling DNS resolution for the site and having them to change it? They don't have to, do they? They could challenge it and take it to court, but who in their right mind is going to do that for an obviously illegal site?
Due process is just that, a process. This is one step in the process. The site owners have every right to speak their side in court and will have a presumption of innocence. You and I both know that not a single one would show up because they KNOW they are violating US law. They'll simply set up shop somewhere else.
requires the other side at least the opportunity to be heard before any action is taken
Where does that last clause come from? Where is "audi alteram partem" when I'm given a ticket for speeding? Where is it when a search warrant is issued for my house? I'm no lawyer, but doesn't that happen in court?
And that's exactly why they can't shut down the bittorrent protocol or games and operating systems from distributing via bittorrent. That's why you don't see linuxtracker.org (for example) on the list of sites.
It's obvious that while the blocked sites encourage using a legal protocol, their primary function is to encourage it's use for copyright infringement.
Let's be realistic here for a second and stop this bullshit skirting the law defense.
Go to torrent-finder.info and you'll see "high speed download" links for copyright infringing works. The "popular tags" all look like copyright infringing works. It is very obvious that they exist only to help people infringe on copyrights and make advertising money off of it.
While you may be able to do something similar with Google, but that is not the primary reason they exist.
How is securing a court order before changing the DNS not a part of due process?
Really? How does the progression from "sites dealing in counterfeit goods" to "sites with dissenting opinion" happen? What court is going to issue that order unless the accusers are lying?
First, the sites, servers, files and goods are still there. If countries or sites don't want to be subject to US law, they should not use US-controlled TLD or DNS services. How possible is that?
Changing a DNS entry does not deprive anyone of "life, liberty or property". The servers, files, goods, etc. are still in the hands of the owner.
DHS has many, many missions, and one likely small section within a section of a section of DHS has responsibility to deal with counterfeit goods and copyright infringement online. Since this required a court order, this section of DHS has already provided enough proof to the courts that the sites involved are breaking or helping to break the law.
Show me a site on the list that doesn't have a primary purpose of dealing in counterfeit goods or helping people infringe on copyrights. Show me a site shut down because of a dissenting opinion. Then I'll back you up, but just saying "they'll get there eventually" doesn't cut it.
An organization like DHS has numerous departments and sections within it that have a WIDE array of responsibility. The Customs section has responsibility to ensure counterfeit or otherwise illegal goods are not brought into the US. That's essentially what these sites are attempting to do, either through physical counterfeit goods or by facilitating copyright infringement by making illegal copies. The MANY other departments within DHS are focused on their own responsibilities and likely have no idea or even care what other sections are doing.
Contrary to what many other people post, the entire US government is dedicated to tearing these sites down while everything else goes ignored. I should also note that it's unlikely President Obama is sitting there adjusting the DNS entries himself, laughing maniacally as he organizes his Thought Police brigade, which many believe is a logical progression from blocking DNS resolution.
Yes, our market is likely to be used for illegal purposes. So are the tools of locksmith or the common kitchen knife possibility to be used for bad. And what the article shows is one of those.
I don't know your site, but I'd wager that it's primarily used to infringe on copyright, that you know that's exactly what it's used for, and you're still trying to rake in whatever profit you can from other people's goods.
If that wasn't the case, I don't know why you'd be running to get your operations out of the US. Which, btw, is fine with me. If you don't want to be subject to US laws, don't do business in the US. Seems fairly obvious to me. And don't complain when your site doesn't resolve in DNS within the US.
Your comparison to locksmith tools and knives is absurd. They are not sold as primary tools to break the law. Neither is bittorrent the protocol.
Innocent until proven guilty, or even better, the presumption of innocence, only applies in the court. YOU have the presumption of innocence and your accuser must overcome that.
These DNS entries were seized with a court order where enough evidence was shown to take action. No actual property was seized. The servers, files, original sites, goods, etc. are still in the hands of the owners. They'll have due process and the presumption of innocence if and when they are brought into court. Since I'm sure most of these owners are outside of the US, court will never happen, though.
They're shutting down sites that help people infringe on copyright. Why do guys keep defending sites that are breaking the law? What logical progression goes from "shutting down sites that help infringe" to "mandate a government DNS"?
If you want to get technical, the government didn't "seize" anything? They updated a DNS entry. The original site, server, files, equipment, goods, etc. are still in the hands of the owner.
I disagree with the length of copyright and think the industry should make more things available online legally, but I'm not going to defend sites that primarily exist only to help people break the law.
I never said that. I know it can be used legally. I have nothing against the protocol or sites that distribute legitimately.
bittorrent.com looks like a place where you download the BT software and an interface to the ASK search engine. But what do they advertise? "Internet's richest media" with background images of Prison Break, Harry Potter, Simpsons, etc. They show a download of Strangers with Candy, Universe at War (a game, apparently). So while I don't see anything specifically wrong with the site, even they use the capability of infringing as an advertisement of the protocol.
If you guys want to protect the protocol itself (and I do), stop defending the sites that primarily exist to promote using the protocol to infringe on copyrights.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no, no... they're preventing access to time machines. I mean, if we're making shit up, aren't time machines cooler than wikileaks?
Who says they aren't? Some of the comments said a few of the sites were involved in that exactly. How many of the sites are digital distribution (download/torrent) sites? If the focus was elsewhere, would that make online infringement less illegal (as if such a term existed)?
Will that somehow make counterfeiting and copyright infringement legal or are you just going offtopic?
Here's a novel idea. See if you can follow it. Imagine DHS has many, many departments and they each have varying responsibilities, some of which are directly related to homeland security and some are not. Imagine a Customs department that has the responsibility of preventing counterfeit goods and illegal copies of works from entering the US. Now imagine a small section within that department specifically has the responsibility with regard to online goods.
lol... yes, that's a logical progression. Today DNS, tomorrow radio. I think your hat may be made out of lead instead of tinfoil. Stop licking it.
Which ICE apparently did before changing the DNS for these sites.
Isn't that exactly how COICA is written?
The OP really should have said "fake goods OR ... copyrighted works". You focused on the "fake goods" part, which obviously doesn't apply to copyright infringement for the points you listed. Nice try at a distraction, though.
They can change the DNS resolution because they proved to a judge that the site was contributing to copyright infringement.
Torrents and copied files are not actual property, either. Hence it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.
What exactly is due process when most of the organization exists outside of your jurisdiction? We can't arrest the owner or serve him to appear in US court. Yet, his actions are allowing US citizens to violate copyright laws. The only thing we have jurisdiction over is the .com DNS resolution, right?
So is not due process getting a court order and serving it to those in the US controlling DNS resolution for the site and having them to change it? They don't have to, do they? They could challenge it and take it to court, but who in their right mind is going to do that for an obviously illegal site?
Due process is just that, a process. This is one step in the process. The site owners have every right to speak their side in court and will have a presumption of innocence. You and I both know that not a single one would show up because they KNOW they are violating US law. They'll simply set up shop somewhere else.
Where does that last clause come from? Where is "audi alteram partem" when I'm given a ticket for speeding? Where is it when a search warrant is issued for my house? I'm no lawyer, but doesn't that happen in court?
And that's exactly why they can't shut down the bittorrent protocol or games and operating systems from distributing via bittorrent. That's why you don't see linuxtracker.org (for example) on the list of sites.
It's obvious that while the blocked sites encourage using a legal protocol, their primary function is to encourage it's use for copyright infringement.
Let's be realistic here for a second and stop this bullshit skirting the law defense.
Go to torrent-finder.info and you'll see "high speed download" links for copyright infringing works. The "popular tags" all look like copyright infringing works. It is very obvious that they exist only to help people infringe on copyrights and make advertising money off of it.
While you may be able to do something similar with Google, but that is not the primary reason they exist.
How is securing a court order before changing the DNS not a part of due process?
Really? How does the progression from "sites dealing in counterfeit goods" to "sites with dissenting opinion" happen? What court is going to issue that order unless the accusers are lying?
What's to stop a country from doing this now with their own country domain and DNS servers?
First, the sites, servers, files and goods are still there. If countries or sites don't want to be subject to US law, they should not use US-controlled TLD or DNS services. How possible is that?
What part of NN gives the government the ability to regulate traffic?
Changing a DNS entry does not deprive anyone of "life, liberty or property". The servers, files, goods, etc. are still in the hands of the owner.
DHS has many, many missions, and one likely small section within a section of a section of DHS has responsibility to deal with counterfeit goods and copyright infringement online. Since this required a court order, this section of DHS has already provided enough proof to the courts that the sites involved are breaking or helping to break the law.
Show me a site on the list that doesn't have a primary purpose of dealing in counterfeit goods or helping people infringe on copyrights. Show me a site shut down because of a dissenting opinion. Then I'll back you up, but just saying "they'll get there eventually" doesn't cut it.
An organization like DHS has numerous departments and sections within it that have a WIDE array of responsibility. The Customs section has responsibility to ensure counterfeit or otherwise illegal goods are not brought into the US. That's essentially what these sites are attempting to do, either through physical counterfeit goods or by facilitating copyright infringement by making illegal copies. The MANY other departments within DHS are focused on their own responsibilities and likely have no idea or even care what other sections are doing.
Contrary to what many other people post, the entire US government is dedicated to tearing these sites down while everything else goes ignored. I should also note that it's unlikely President Obama is sitting there adjusting the DNS entries himself, laughing maniacally as he organizes his Thought Police brigade, which many believe is a logical progression from blocking DNS resolution.
I don't know your site, but I'd wager that it's primarily used to infringe on copyright, that you know that's exactly what it's used for, and you're still trying to rake in whatever profit you can from other people's goods.
If that wasn't the case, I don't know why you'd be running to get your operations out of the US. Which, btw, is fine with me. If you don't want to be subject to US laws, don't do business in the US. Seems fairly obvious to me. And don't complain when your site doesn't resolve in DNS within the US.
Your comparison to locksmith tools and knives is absurd. They are not sold as primary tools to break the law. Neither is bittorrent the protocol.
Innocent until proven guilty, or even better, the presumption of innocence, only applies in the court. YOU have the presumption of innocence and your accuser must overcome that.
These DNS entries were seized with a court order where enough evidence was shown to take action. No actual property was seized. The servers, files, original sites, goods, etc. are still in the hands of the owners. They'll have due process and the presumption of innocence if and when they are brought into court. Since I'm sure most of these owners are outside of the US, court will never happen, though.
They're changing DNS entries for sites that primarily exist to help people break the law.
They're shutting down sites that help people infringe on copyright. Why do guys keep defending sites that are breaking the law? What logical progression goes from "shutting down sites that help infringe" to "mandate a government DNS"?
If you want to get technical, the government didn't "seize" anything? They updated a DNS entry. The original site, server, files, equipment, goods, etc. are still in the hands of the owner.
I disagree with the length of copyright and think the industry should make more things available online legally, but I'm not going to defend sites that primarily exist only to help people break the law.
I never said that. I know it can be used legally. I have nothing against the protocol or sites that distribute legitimately.
bittorrent.com looks like a place where you download the BT software and an interface to the ASK search engine. But what do they advertise? "Internet's richest media" with background images of Prison Break, Harry Potter, Simpsons, etc. They show a download of Strangers with Candy, Universe at War (a game, apparently). So while I don't see anything specifically wrong with the site, even they use the capability of infringing as an advertisement of the protocol.
If you guys want to protect the protocol itself (and I do), stop defending the sites that primarily exist to promote using the protocol to infringe on copyrights.