“Sue the labels for making libelous/slanderous accusations. (I assume that someone somewhere had to make a libelous/slanderous statement to get the prosecutors to go along with this.)”

Good luck.

The inability for the feds to make a 100% clear enough case to take to prosecution doesn’t in any way suggest that there was nothing here. It only suggests that they couldn’t put all the pieces together in manner that would allow them to get an indictment and work from there.

Suing the labels would be a waste of time, and the website would actually have to prove that the claims of the labels are ENTIRELY unfounded – otherwise they would be made in good faith.

It’s not a winning hand to play, sorry!

While this specific EFF lawier may have some venom in her words in this csae, after reading the documents my reaction wouldn’t be different.

Sorry corporate shill, but while her words may not be the most diplomatic ones she is just putting in simple words what really happened.

Even more troubling, however, is that the repeated requests for extension do not (at all) address the key First Amendment issues about the fact that a news publication was completely shut down based on these accusations.

News publication? That’s a laugh. During your SOPA snivelathon they were a “hip-hop blog”. Now, for affect you categorize them as a “news publication”.

They’re a hip-hop blog that publishes news… how that doesn’t make them a news publication? Argument’s are week today…

Say, corporate shill, I have a question. Do you guys know that every time you view and comment here, you increase traffic to the site, making it rank higher on searches, and draw more people here?

So to better accomplish your objective, wouldn’t be better if you guys stopped coming here? Oh wait, you’d loose your job… ah, I get it. Sucks to be you.

So you are saying that, since it is a “Hip Hop” Blog, it does not count as a real news site? Even when it provides news?
Does this mean that any Blog you don’t like, or disagree with, is by definition not a news site?

Or is your comment just knee jerk drivel!

Actually, no. They would have to convince a jury of regular people–people that would likely see crowds outside the court with “Screw the RIAA”-type signs–that it is more likely than not that the statements were unfounded. The tracks were officially released by the very label that claimed they were unauthorized. Good luck with a “Well we didn’t know we released them” argument when the jury hears that the RIAA abused the powers of government, who people already dislike, to silence a website.

The MAFIAA are vastly underestimating the rage and disgust that has built up in the public against them over the last decade. Get that same public on a jury? I see large awards.

“otherwise Dajaz1’s lawyers would have been all over it”

You know jack shit nothing about what they are or are not all over. You only know what you’re told when you’re told on a time table that gives no fuck about your speculation.

Pipe down you obnoxious windbag.

It’s an affront to to even suggest that they engage in journalism.

Your personal opinion on the quality of the news that they produce is irrelevant. If they report facts about hip-hop than they are covered under the same freedom of the press as any journalist. Declaring them to be “lowly” bloggers rather than journalists does not grant the government the right to censor them.

“When they came for the bloggers, I did not speak up, for I was not a blogger.”

“Claiming to be “a journalist” does not provide you immunity from unlawful conduct.”

No one, except you, is bringing this up.

Masnick is the one who all of a sudden conjured up the term ‘news publication’ in referring to Dajaz1. No one, not even Dajaz1 is claiming wrongdoing on those grounds. Dajaz1 claims that they weren’t infringing. I’m not aware of anyone else advancing this absurd theory…. other than Techdirt’s own version of Yosemite Sam who- having watched his mindless fanboys flame out over CISPA- is now seeking to stir up a new (and groundless) outrage.

Focus on the issue, son. The government is clearly in the wrong here. But not for any of the (Masnick) reasons you’re parroting. It’s likely that the material cited as infringing was provided Dajaz1 by one part of the company unbeknownst to another part of the company and/or the RIAA.

Thanks for your Wikipedia insights into one of the most complex of all judicial issues. You really ought to write to Dajaz1’s lawyer and tell him he’s making a huge mistake. I’m sure he’ll be as grateful and impressed as I am.

Actually they had to file at least 12 of them(60 day extensions). Six for each domain name.

(C) Upon motion by the Government, a court may extend the period for sending notice under subparagraph (A) for a period not to exceed 60 days, which period may be further extended by the court for 60-day periods, as necessary, if the court determines, based on a written certification of a supervisory official in the headquarters office of the seizing agency, that the conditions in subparagraph (D) are present.

Oh my God, what a stinging rebuke. Sorry if I disrupted the harmony of the Techdirt echo chamber. Go back to playing keyboard anarchist or shithouse lawyer. I’m finished pointing out the obvious for now.

Well, maybe at least people claiming to be engaged in journalism. A component that is somehow missing here.

Or maybe this distinguished, Harvard-educated jurist is on firm legal footing and the Techdirt legal team is full of shit? Just a thought.

well it’s quite Obvious this shill might be into kiddie porn, I saw a teddy bear on his bed, it may have been the pedo bear, I think we should give the FBI his IP address, ya know, JUST in case, then his life can be put on hold for a year, then given back, with NO explanation,No apology; Sounds fair right AC shill??

Of course you will deny it, but we should check anyways…..
(cause you just may be protesting a bit too much)

My Father always told me the best way to get an ass’s (mule) attention is to hit them between the eyes with a 2X4, seems he may have been correct. (No offense to mules)

“Claiming to be “a journalist” does not provide you immunity from unlawful conduct.”

You mean the unlawful conduct the government couldn’t prove?

to sue the gov’t. The collected funds returned to the investors. This would be a good opportunity to also ask that there be an overarching injunction against government seizure of ANY other website without non-secret/non-sealed charges being filed FIRST.

hugz ya’ll.

The seizure had nothing to do with news. It had to do with allegations of infringement. A seizure is an arrest of property. If these guys were operating a a printed newsletter and allegedly selling bootleg DVD’s out of the back door, the business would be subject to seizure and the free speech claim would not serve as a shield.

I don’t really care if you’re impressed; you’re wrong. This is a classic prior restraint situation. How the site is characterized is irrelevant because virtually everything that takes place on the Internet with the exception of child porn is protected speech or speech acts. If they were doing nothing other than distributing music and having people review it publicly, wiping it out is still a prior restraint. Any government act that directly or indirectly results in prevention of speech before it occurs is a prior restraint.

As for dajaz1’s lawyer(s), I’m not sure what mistake (s)he’s making. To go after the DoJ actors, he’d have to bring a Bivens action (the 42 USC ? 1983 equivalent for officials acting under color of federal law), and he has three years for that. It’s not something you’d discuss openly in advance. Going after a powerful agency like the DoJ, especially on their turf (federal court) is a fight you better be prepared for.

Oh and just so you know, I selected broad, simple quotes because I wasn’t about to write a full-out brief for you and just wanted to get a point across. If this were a real court and you argued that shuttering a website without accusation or trial on the say-so of a corrupt dying lobbying group and ignoring all statutes in the process isn’t a prior restraint, I’d just move for Rule 11 sanctions against you for making frivolous arguments; it would take a lot less time. Don’t assume so much next time and you might learn something. Sometimes people dumb their responses down to the level of the original post.

BTW, It seems like the judge, the prosecutor and Dajaz1’s attorney all see it differently. Pffft.. what do they know, right Professor Dershowitz? I keep pointing out that a seizure is an arrest of property and you keep ignoring it. And as long as you’re pretending to be a lawyer, feel free to move for pretend Rule 11 sanctions. I’m sure pretend judge Masnick will grant your pretend motion. Then you two wankers can pretend that you have accomplished something.

Of course, that’s no excuse for ICE to continue to hold onto the website in question. Just because they totally screwed up and rushed in to censor, doesn’t mean they get to drag their feet in admitting error.

Don’t you know by now that regular laws don’t apply to this new-fangled, cyber-space thingy?

Hear hear.

If there is anything you cannot accuse them of it is having no clue. They have been changing and corrupting law since their inception, with only their own interests in mind. Not those of creators, and certainly not those of the public. They know what they are doing, and it has been working.

And it will get worse before it gets better.

You know, from overseas (Europe) your country looks even more dangerous and stupid than any other country that you declare war to. Its slavery and downpressing is so big and right under your noses that 90% of your people don’t see it. The baddest part is that Europe dances to the US’s demands so it’s getting worse and worse here as well. Today we remember the WWII victims, but freedom my ass! Occupy everywhere….. I truly feel for you guys (and for us – no n?t “the US”)

An arrest CAN violate due process. Especially if you’re being arrested and NOT being charged. Of course, there is a 24 hour window where they can hold you, but after that your rights have been violated.

You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed and you’re bad analogies, personal attacks against everyone, etc. are very much proof that you’ve taken an indefensible and rather wrong position.

Here’s a thought. Before you start talking, think about the fact that YOU refuse to back up anything you say with actual facts/evidence/etc. Then realize that a large majority of people on this site (trolls/shills notwithstanding) are willing to go out of their way to prove you wrong and cite sources while doing so. At that point, just back away from the keyboard and go outside and play. You’d be a lot better off for doing that and you’d look like a lot less of an idiot, son. (Also, just because you call someone “son” doesn’t automatically make you more intelligent/wiser. It just means you’re very much a condescending asshole who’s trying to put others down in as condescending manner as possible. Do avoid doing that. Or don’t. Your reputation on this site couldn’t possibly get any lower. So it’s not like it matters.)

The university where you graduated says nothing about how good of a student you were during your stay there.

I know quite a few former-students of pretigious universities – some of them my colleagues – that aren’t worth of their diplomas, yet they are hired solely on the name basis of the place they graduated and because they knew how to use a tie for a job interview instead of the quality of their job.

Ironically, the most promissing intern here comes from a community college.

Please define law school. Where your opponent got their eduction is irrelevant if your argument loses to theirs. Some of our most important cases were brought and won by pro se parties. Instead of trying to attack my qualifications, why don’t you explain to us how this is not a prior restraint because it’s a blog. Support your argument with convincing valid caselaw and I’ll concede if you can pull it off.

it is clear to me that the “judge” Margaret M. Morrow is a government shill who will blindly rubberstamp any government document put in front of her, in other words she is simply an agent of a government bent on breaking the laws set forth in the constitution. What is 1000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

In summary… the government “seized” a domain name, which didn’t actually take down any infringing content or preserve any evidence, but just made the site harder to find. There was supposed to be a deadline where they had to provide a justification or return the domain name, but the government filed for secret extensions. In the extensions they claimed that they were working on a criminal investigation and revealing the investigation might hamper it (while providing zero evidence of anything.)

Does anyone really think that the company didn’t think there might be some sort of criminal investigation going on, considering the seizure? So, even if the government was correct that providing certain information regarding the investigation might hamper it… there was no reason not to reveal the existance of the investigation itself. Everyone already knew about it. Therefore, there was no reason to seal the motions for extension.

And even if the MOTIONS for extension still needed to be sealed, there is no excuse for sealing the GRANTING of the motions. They say nothing more than that the motion was granted. This is where it gets ridiculous.

“Since you didn’t file for forfieture by the deadline, you have to return my property.” “No, we got an extension.” “Really? Let’s see it.” “No! Trust us, we got one!” “Can we talk to the judge?” “NO!” “OK, now it’s 2 months later, your extension must have expired.” “No, we got another one! And you can’t see this one either!” “Well, OK, now it’s another 2 months later, your last extension must have expired, right?” “We got another one! And we totally didn’t get it after the deadline, trust us!” “You know, we actually DON’T trust you…” “Too bad! Everything’s under seal so you can’t prove anything!”

In what universe is that acceptable?

AND, when the extensions expired, the property needed to be returned THAT DAY. Since the “property” was a domain name, it would only take a few mouse clicks, right? It’s not like we’re even talking about something that could be evidence, or actual allegedly infringing material, or even something that was possible for them to hide if it needed to be seized again.