Can The Operators Of A Site Targeted By Homeland Security Crowdsource A Defense?

from the legal-long-shots dept

We've already covered the bizarre story of Homeland Security effectively working for Disney in seizing some domains of sites that were used to file share movies (way, way, way outside of Homeland Security's mandate), and covered the sneaky attempt to defend those moves by conflating copyright infringement online with counterfeit drugs being sold online. It's also still not clear that Homeland Security even has the legal right to seize those domains as it did. Now, one of those sites targeted by Homeland Security, NinjaVideo is trying to fight back, and appears to be trying to crowdsource a legal defense fund to handle the fight. I honestly don't know anything about NinjaVideo or what the site did, so I have no idea if it has a strong or weak case. I also do wonder how many people will really step up and support the site -- though if many do it could make for an interesting case study on its own as well. Either way, it's worth watching to see how successful the site is in raising money for its fight -- and then in the legal fight itself.

Filed Under: copyright, crowdsource, homeland security
Companies: ninjavideo

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    average_joe (profile), 25 Jul 2010 @ 4:20pm

    Re: Re:

    Since I'm being criticized for not criticizing this AC's post, let me do so now. (By the way, get a screen name and use it, that way people get a sense of who you are and what you think. Otherwise, everything you post is presumptively suspect, IMO.)

    "The Department of Homeland Security was created for the express purpose of protecting America from terrorist threats. How does shutting down sites that link to copyrighted movies fall within the scope of protecting America from terrorists."

    Please cite your authority for this position. Without citation, it appears as if you are just making this up. You will need to explain the scope of DHS's mandate, and then explain how this doesn't fall within that scope. An analysis of competing interpretations with your own analysis on top would be even better.

    "The part where they don't actually file any charges, but rather just seize the person's assets without ever having to show any proof whatsoever."

    Do you have the least bit of an understanding of how these forfeitures work? Your statement indicates otherwise.

    The very concept of asset seizure and forfeiture without a criminal conviction, violates due process. If a person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, how can the government legally seize their property? Such an action is punitive, but if the person is innocent, why are they being punished? Don't even get me started on the ridiculous idea that the property is being charged with a crime. If property can now be treated like a human being, where are its rights? Why isn't it appointed a public defender and given a fair trial?

    Asset seizure and forfeiture laws are nothing more than legalized stealing. I don't care how many courts have given this travesty their approval. Being able to take someone's property without ever charging the owner with a crime, or having to show any real proof that the property is the result of a criminal activity violates everything that America is supposed to stand for. It just goes to show how corrupt the courts are that they let the politicians pass a law that allows them to just take whatever they like with nothing more than a statement, and no oversight."

    The constitutionality of such forfeitures has been challenged for decades--and to no avail. The very nature of your questioning shows your complete lack of understanding of the substantive issues at hand. You seem to just be stating your off-hand opinion on the matter with absolutely no research into the substance of the debate. There's little need to debate with a person who hasn't made a showing that they even understand at a basic level the issues being discussed.

    Feel better, Modplan? I took on thye AC. Yawn.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.