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
    Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Jul 2010 @ 3:29am


    First of all, Joe, I am not your student. I am not your employee. We have about a million readers of this site and I have no obligation to respond to every one who shows up here uneducated and ignorant and demands that I point out where he should go to learn.

    Second, for someone who in other comments threads totally failed to respond to comments that blatantly proved him false (for examples Karl's recent total debunking of the core argument you made), for you to then mock the fact that I failed to reply to you in a timely manner is particular ridiculous and insulting.

    I'm sorry, but I spent the weekend with my family rather than spending time doing your homework for you.

    I will respond to your silly questions just this once, because if I don't, you will falsely claim that I chose not to answer them because I could not. I can and I will, but only this time. I have better things to do with my time then respond to folks like you. In the future, if you wish to have a serious discussion, rather than the pedantic obnoxious one you have started here, then I may respond to you. But if you ever pull this kind of crap again, don't expect a response.

    Why do you think DHS works for Disney?

    You should try clicking on the link provided in the article (this is the internet, you know), where we explain stuff. Homeland Security announced the raid and seizures from Disney's headquarters. This is highly questionable. As I noted at the time, if the FTC announced antitrust actions against Google from Microsoft's headquarters people would obviously speak out in protest. No different here. Homeland Security should never act to protect a particular company's business model.

    Exactly which part of Homeland Security's mandate are you referring to? I'd like to see the exact verbiage of the mandate that you think they are working outside of.

    Homeland Security's stated mission, found on their website, reads:

    "We will lead the unified national effort to secure America. We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the Nation. We will secure our national borders while welcoming lawful immigrants, visitors, and trade."

    A bunch of forums linking to movies that are available on the internet is not a terrorist attack and is not a "threat and hazard to the nation." It's not even a threat or hazard to Disney if they knew how to respond properly with better business models. But the point is that it is not even close to Homeland Security's mission. It has nothing to do with terrorism or securing our borders.

    Why does DHS's IPR website distinguish between piracy and counterfeiting when you say they conflate the two? Can't they be against both? Isn't this sort of thing exactly within their mandate?

    Again, your failure to click the link says a lot about why you have trouble understanding basic concepts. In the recent testimony before Congress, John Morton repeatedly conflated the two, talking about protecting against "health and safety" issues, which only came about when talking about counterfeit drugs -- but then lumped in internet file sharing as if it also caused health and safety issues. This is not new. I recognize you just discovered copyright law a year ago, but some of us have seen how this game has been played for a long, long time. A few years back the Rand report which the entertainment industry loves, did this over and over again in trying to make the case that file sharing supports terrorists, when all it could sorta/barely/kinda show is that some counterfeit CD/DVD operations (which, by the way, are also facing competition from file sharing) were backed by organized crime.

    Please explain this claim in detail. Which part of civil forfeiture concurrent with a criminal investigation don't you get?

    I understand civil forfeiture just fine. I question whether it is appropriate in the case of domain names, which is a different category of asset than typical property. I also question whether or not this was appropriately categorized as a criminal, rather than civil situation.

    You've insulted me and questioned my intelligence and understanding of the law. Somehow you think the fact that I'm in law school means I know less about the law than you.

    Yes. When you get stuff wrong, as you did regularly in past threads, it was only right to call you out. When you stood by totally false claims (such as copyright being natural and the public domain being unnatural), it was totally right to question your understanding of the law. Karl thoroughly debunked your statements, and you have yet to respond to them in any serious manner.

    I did not insult you or question your intelligence because you're a second year law student. We have many 1Ls or NoLs on these boards who have a clear and competent understanding of the law. You rushed in with little understanding, got called on it, and refused to admit you were wrong.

    You got what you deserved, but rather than deal with it, you come back with these pedantic comments "calling me out." Get over yourself, kiddo.

    I can almost guarantee no one will have anything substantive to say.

    Funny. Good luck Joe. You are going to need it. But that's it from me. Others can and will respond to you. I may choose to chime in on key points if I think they can help, but I will never respond to some bogus and childish "demand" that I answer your questions.

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.