…Really doesn’t surprise me at all given their history. They’ve just recently gone for those three over a hack to Starcraft, there’s Bobby Kotick’s entire stance on micromonetizing everything he can, then there’s the fact that they went after another person for hacking Warcraft by making a bot. WTF Blizzard?

Hastings actually comes as a shock…

They deal in DVDs and CDs along with a great used book market…

Oh wait, DVDs and CDs. I get it now. They don’t want to compete against Netflix or don’t know how.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle cyan, magenta, yellow, and black!

they already screwed up the net like they did hte banking system. LET THEM wallow when no one uses it and people wake up to hoe monetization of a communications network is NOT what the people want.

The day the internet is censored is the day the first international civil war will rise up and kill all government to make a pure and perfect civilization without censoring and corruption… save the troll or two

What’s the point man?

“Yeah, I’m reading it differently now. I think I was misreading it before. The argument is that the domain name is property that can be seized since it was used in the commission of criminal infringement. The whole debate about whether the domain name itself is protected speech was in the context of whether or not the seizures violated the First Amendment. The affidavit states that they were trying to seize the domain name for several reasons, one of which was that it would shut down the website. That reason turned out to be wrong, and it doesn’t negate the other reasons that were alleged. ICE didn’t seize the whole bookstore, so that analogy doesn’t work. They seized the domain name, that’s all. The website’s still there.”

So, the analogy would be that they confiscated the book store’s signs instead? How would that be more justifiable?

“The confusion seems to center around whether or not it’s really more than just a piece of property, e.g., maybe it is protected speech.”

If they’re confiscating it for no reason other than it’s related to a crime (for which there has been no case heard), then why is that more important than the fact that they are forcing a website with protected speech on to get a new name? The whole point of prior restraint is that limiting free speech doesn’t have to mean direct censorship. If you’re merely taking them out of the Google results until they register a new name then that would still seem to be prior restraint. Just because it’s not entirely effective does not mean it isn’t effectively censorship.

“The claim here is that the domain name is property used in the commission of a crime, and as such, it can be seized under U.S. Code.”

You mean, except for the domain names that weren’t used in commission of a crime? Then even so, how does that justify stomping over their free speech rights? Does this mean someone should be able to accuse Techdirt of infringement and immediately get the domain name seized? Even if there is infringement, how is that a proportionate response?

I haven’t paid a penny to the entertainment industry (music, movies, games) in well over 5 years. I’ll download movies, movies and games as they are released. Why would I fund the lawyers who will come after me for sampling some of their goods. I have no intention in the future to spend money on movies, music or games, until such time that the industry starts treating their customers as actual customers.

In the past I actually bought and pirated in equal amounts. These days there is really no point funding a bunch of scummy lawyers. Give me what I want and when I want it and I will start paying for content.

How about the content? If that is presumptively protected speech then isn’t the domain name’s status a moot point?

I think the courts will look at the content on the server and the domain name as being two separate things, which is what they actually are. You can seize one and not the other–they are separate things.

If the domain name is property used to commit a crime, it can be seized under 18 U.S.C. 2323. Once there is probable cause that the site is being used to infringe criminally, the domain name can be seized since it’s property used to commit that crime. The content on the site is looked at to determine if there’s a crime. The domain name is just property that’s used to commit the crime.

That’s my take.

You see this is where clarification from the judge involved would be helpful.

Agreed. Thinking about it makes my head hurt. It’s poorly phrased.

But if it is to get meaning from the wording, no where in there “trial” is the instance to be concluded, it suggests that the judge will take into consideration if it is a case of presumptively protected speech or not, meaning he has to make the call at the moment of the first request and not at trial because that would defeat the purpose of having presumption and not being protected.

But if a determination has to be made on the merits, doesn’t that make it not a presumption?

I think you’re equating the domain name with the website it points to. They’re different things.

No one is forcing you to come here.

If they’re confiscating it for no reason other than it’s related to a crime (for which there has been no case heard), then why is that more important than the fact that they are forcing a website with protected speech on to get a new name? The whole point of prior restraint is that limiting free speech doesn’t have to mean direct censorship. If you’re merely taking them out of the Google results until they register a new name then that would still seem to be prior restraint. Just because it’s not entirely effective does not mean it isn’t effectively censorship.

I think there’s two different speeches here, the content of the website, and the domain name itself. The domain name is being seized because of alleged crimes being committed on the website. You can seize the domain name because its connection to the content on the website is only incidental. The domain name itself is also speech, but it too can be seized because it’s not presumptively protected speech. It may well be protected speech, but that is yet to be determined.

I’m just not seeing the prior restraint. Where’s the First Amendment violation?

Now, I always thought the stages of grief were:

anger, denial, resentment, cross-dressing and acceptance

..but not necessarily in that order.

Actually the best way to fight back is to become the criminals they already suspect everyone of being. Pirate everything you want. By supporting abuse they condone it, so in all likelihood it will return to them tenfold. For all of the physical merchandise, that’s a joke plane and simple. Odds are knock off nike’s and so forth are being made in a building one block over from the real versions in China or some other country that these corporations are exploiting. They’re a joke. And so are you.

The day the internet is censored is the day the first international civil war will rise up and kill all government to make a pure and perfect civilization without censoring and corruption… save the troll or two

HAHAH,, first international CIVIL war

BTW: thay day happened many years ago. even before the internet was invented.

Cersorship on the internet is as old as the internet itself, deal with it.

Then you might want to work out what a civil war is !!!!

Again, for you its the USA and there is nothing else, sorry, ‘the banking system was not screwed up’, the US’s banking system, in particular the sub-prime mortgage markets, and the MASSIVE DEBT you buit up fighting a losing war caused YOUR FINANCIAL SYSTEMS to fail.

Most other countries, particularly ones who have learnt not to rely on the US, did not suffer anything like what is STILL occuring in the US.

The US is a basket case, and should be in intensive care, and you want to reduce peoples spending from US companies !!.

No wonder you are where you are.

Hank ill used to sell ‘FUCK CURB’ shirts at all hi shows in response to their business practices while he was under contract with them.

I love the ugliness, it sizzles! 🙂

What is your definition of due process? Mine is that the accused gets to defend themselves before they are punished.

Things get seized and people get arrested all the time, and before there’s a trial on the merits. It doesn’t violate due process necessarily.

Those companies will not see any of my money now.

To me this is like every other business shift. We have all heard the story of the lucrative company making horse whips, that refused to change their business model when the car came out.

They hymned and haw’d because you know those cars weren’t going to take over……..Well we all know what happened there.

These companies cant stop the information from flowing, they just leave themselves out to dwindle away.

Most of these are entertainment companies. I don’t own a TV, and probably never will. I do pay for my downloads and take advantage of free streaming (cbs, nbc, etc..)

They are scared for their lives, but just too lazy to change for the better. And since they don’t participate freely in the Information market, they have already lost my business.

“I’m just not seeing the prior restraint. Where’s the First Amendment violation?”

They’re a) restricting access not just to existing protected speech, but any further speech via that site (prior restraint); b) restricting access to protected speech without any defensible reason (at least the DMCA is an accusation against the speech itself). I’m not arguing that the domain name itself is protected speech, because I honestly don’t see a need to look at that argument when there are more obvious reasons why what they did was wrong.

So I guess we can agree to disagree. You believe that blocking a domain name has no impact on the free speech rights of a website. I would point to the various examples of just such a mechanism being used (or proposed) as a form of censorship, but I can’t imagine that you’re not already aware of them.

“You’re making me wish techdirt had an ignore button, Anonymous.”

Someone posted a greasemonkey script recently to filter Darryl’s posts. Can’t say I’d use it myself but it’s there.

1, 2, and 5 sound like great ideas. Too bad you’re not being serious. Sports are ruining this country.

I’m fairly certain that if these companies were dependent on my dollars for survival, they’d already be out of business….

They have to be charged with a crime, and ownership of seized property is not automatically transferred to the state. The owners of the seized domain names have not been charged or even contacted by ICE, and have no opportunity to respond to the seizure. They have been afforded no opportunity to participate in the process at all, due or otherwise.

False, they don’t have to charged with a crime. True, ownership is not automatically transferred to the state, but possession is transferred for the time being. That’s how seizure of any property works. False, some lawsuits have been filed and the owners of the domain names are being given a chance to be heard in court. Eventually, every single domain name owner will get their day in court.

It sounds to me like you don’t really know what’s going on, and you’re just assuming the worst. Don’t let the headlines fool you.

When you die do you think your house will be in Heaven?

They have to be charged with a crime, and ownership of seized property is not automatically transferred to the state.

Except in drug cases, where property can be seized and forfeited without any charges ever being filed against the person it was taken from. In such cases, the owner has to go to court and try and prove that their property wasn’t used for or gained as a result of drug related business. This is reportedly extremely hard to do and most people never get their property returned to them.

In some areas, the police rely on asset forfeiture as a way to supplement their budgets, and the government appears willing to expand asset seizure and forfeiture to other “crimes” as well, such as copyright infringement.

Just to be clear: I am against intellectual monopoly. But conflating draconian copyright and patent protections with draconian measures against counterfeiting and trademark infringement is a serious error. Counterfeiting and identity theft are completely unrelated to copyright and patent monopolies. Trademarks should be protected–this is a service that businesses want the middle class to pay for so that businesses can benefit without having to pay taxes to support the vast legal and judicial apparatus necessary to enforce it.

But the confusion surrounding intellectual monopoly conflates identity theft, which is one social evil, and rent seeking behavior codified and sanctioned in copyright and patent law, which is a completely different social evil. That abysmal confusion doesn’t justify trashing due process.

Very true.

Much of what Terry wrote above I pointed out weeks, if not months ago.

However the people you’re dealing with on this site, and Mike Masnick in particular, have no interest in looking at the law from a impartial point of view.

The agenda is to protect the continued piracy of copyrighted works. Something that needs to be pointed out regularly so that people understand that they are being conned here.

“Garden variety theft is NOT free speech.”

If you’d read the article you would know that the affected websites included blogs who had been sent the ‘infringing’ content by agents of the copyright holders. You don’t do the argument that copying is theft any favours by getting everything else wrong.

#3

“I am against intellectual monopoly. But conflating draconian copyright and patent protections with draconian measures against counterfeiting and trademark infringement is a serious error.”

To clarify, whom do you think is making that error?

However the people you’re dealing with on this site, and Mike Masnick in particular, have no interest in looking at the law from a impartial point of view.

The agenda is to protect the continued piracy of copyrighted works.

It certainly feels that way to me sometimes too.

“That wasn’t the “only” content on the sites… not even close.”

Unfortunately I can’t check this, because the domains were seized. Regardless, I don’t get how you can claim that what was in the affidavit doesn’t matter at all. What is the point of the affidavit including any examples if they don’t have to be evidence of actual infringement? You are still supporting the notion that Techdirt could have its domain seized if someone filed an affidavit claiming that it posts infringing content and backed it up with examples where Mike has linked to content he is reporting on. What is the point of fair use if it regardless of whether a court would find something fair use, the domain name could be seized immediately based only on the accusation?

Whatever technicalities you care to argue over, as Mike has pointed out, you are defending the indefensible.

“You can find the sites still, because their content still resides on the servers, including all of their forum and blog content. This site has highlighted the fact that many of the sites simply purchased new domain names. And as was discussed above, a simple Google search will take you to these new domains.”

And the site appears to be full of embedded videos and links to other sites. Not unlike Techdirt, really.

“never said it didn’t matter at all. I said that it was relevant to the standard of proof necessary for the seizure.”

If you genuinely believe that then you presumably believe that any website linking to copyrighted content for fair use can have their domain seized. If not, why not?

“Back to my original point, they are infringing. An e-mail from a record label employee does not consitutes a valid content distribution license. Even if you disagree with this point of law, a judge could easily find the standard for the seizure was met given these facts.”

Except that they don’t appear to be hosting any content, only linking to it. At most they are guilty of contributory infringement, which would be highly contentious in light of the encouragement by the rights holders. Presumably they wouldn’t sue themselves, but it would seem a pretty strong defence against contributory infringement that their partner in crime was the VP at the label. Considering the lack of successful cases brought against contributory infringement I’m not even sure they could argue probable cause in the ‘best’ of circumstances.

My understanding is that probable cause is the same concept used to determine whether a home can be searched. Would it be OK for them to search your home because you had been accused of talking to your boss about stealing office supplies, considering that your boss had initiated the conversation?

“Things are rarely so black and white, especially when it comes to issues of constitutional law. We disagree, and that’s okay.”

Perhaps when you can explain the points above, then add on the issues about the first amendment, then I can agree to disagree. In the mean time I am compelled to keep asking questions. If you really want to placate me then you could admit that whatever you believe the legalities to be, some of those domains should not have been seized.

We could argue for ages about whether piracy is wrong or good. I think piracy is wrong because it is not a victimless crime. Every time you pirate, you use a product that you are not supposed to use, and that allows copyright cartels to compete with CC / Free software unfairly (as it artificially decreases their price, without really decreasing it). You are then sabootaging the market share of artists and developers that would otherwise be rocking because of their competitive pricing (you know, indies that release their music much cheaper than disco labels, or open source developers that share their work with all the world). The unfair competition, ends up discouraging these people and promotes the domination of the music, software and TV giants.

BUT, this is not about piracy being wrong or good. Piracy is already illegal and there are already methods to stop it in the web THROUGH the justice system. What this bill does is make courts unnecessary for the matter and instead hands an off switch to companies which they can use not only against pirates, but also against competitors. It also enables the government to shut down sites they don’t like. IE: wikileaks would be much easier to kill if all it would take the US government was to terminate any domain name without a court order.

to all of the entities supporting such a policy of censorship, i am compelled to ask “what is wrong or lacking with the current ‘due process’ and/or need to show ‘just cause?'”
if you are unable to meet that criteria, perhaps your push is un-American and anti-freedom of expression. if corportations can be seen as “people” with all the rights but none of the responsibilities, how can you possibly seek to silence any entity ? ? ?

GET REAL ! ! !
BE A RESPONSIBLE AND HONORABLE CITIZEN ! ! !

“You do realize that you shifted the conversation to something entirely different, right?”

Are you suggesting that I’ve gone off topic somehow? Your explanation wouldn’t appear to support that.

“You stated earlier that you couldn’t find the sites at all, but now you seem to admit that you can find them, and that they contains links.”

Yes, I found them after a Google search. Not an arduous task I admit, but the point was that seizing a domain name name has an effect on freedom of speech (however small). I don’t even know for sure that the sites I’m looking at are the ones that were seized, I’m fairly sure, but if this was common practice then I would assume that any similar domain names may be hijacked by people wishing to exploit the traffic as soon as a seizure took place.

As repeatedly pointed out, this is the admitted intent of the seizures (to deny access) and the only reason that they’re able to pop up again under another name is the lack of influence over non .com registries. Are you suggesting that impotence should excuse an attempt by the government to violate the rights of its citizens? Oh sorry, you don’t like me wondering what you’re thinking; I’ll rephrase: should impotence excuse an attempt by the government to violate the rights of its citizens?

“You’re doing it again. You misstated my position, I corrected you, and now you’ve shifted the conversation again by inventing another argument I never made. “

Let me restate: how is this different from a site having its domain seized for linking to copyrighted content for fair use?

“You again erroneously assume that the majority of music, movies, and other files linked to on these sites were licensed by the owners or otherwise legal.”

I’m assuming that they haven’t been taken to court and found guilty of anything. Plus, how come Youtube’s domain doesn’t get seized? They actually host infringing content. The only difference I can see is that Youtube likely have a large legal team who would point out that they cooperate with any copyright holder who bothers to file a proper DMCA notice.

“I simply set out to correct an incorrect statement of law which is that an email from a record label employee constitutes a digital distribution license on behalf of a record label, magically making any and all distribution of those files legal.”

If your message is to stop promoting anything that isn’t under a copyleft licence then I’m right there with you. Or would be, if that sort of bullshit didn’t just get in the way of listening to and supporting the music I like. I’m all for artists rights; I just don’t think infringing on other peoples free speech, which is the cornerstone of artistic freedom, is a good thing.

Activision hurts. The rest I’ve never bought anything from in the first place, but Activision… D:

“Mike Masnick will defend piracy at any cost, including lying up and down about a bill designed to protect original creations.

Mike Masnick is one of the web’s biggest piracy apologists.”

I was waiting for this robopost.

Here we go:

“And, of course, none of this is to say that violating copyright or trademark laws should be allowed.” – Mike Masnick, see above

FACE.

“Due process occurred in all of the cases.

Masnick lies about that fact because his agenda is to support piracy.”

There haven’t been any cases. This is a bill.

LOVE the trolls on TechDirt. I come for the freedom fighting, I stay for the derps.

Thanks for the info. My son wants to get into aerial cinematography in Utah. I’m not completely sure what it is, but I want to support him in what he wants to do. Can someone explain to me what it is?

You can add Valve and Steam Platform as they ae censoring their competitors names.