Are Homeland Security's Domain Seizures Actually Working? Doesn't Look Like It
from the the-definition-of-insanity dept
In talking about Homeland Security’s domain name seizures, one of the lines that’s been trotted out by Homeland Security and supporters of these actions, such as the MPAA, is that these seizures are “working” in terms of taking down sites and keeping them down. We’ve pointed out that this was not true, but the good folks over at TorrentFreak went deeper and looked at all of the sites seized for copyright infringement claims, and found that the vast majority of them came back online pretty quickly, contrary to the claims of both the MPAA and Homeland Security. So, why do they keep claiming that these seizures are working?
Filed Under: coica, copyright, domain seizures, homeland security, infringement
Comments on “Are Homeland Security's Domain Seizures Actually Working? Doesn't Look Like It”
“So, why do they keep claiming that these seizures are working?”
Lies are a habit for them.
Re: Re:
Propaganda is the best tool. Ask the French!
“So, why do they keep claiming that these seizures are working?”
Do I need to explain this to you?
Every dictator wishes they had the power to point a finger at something that threatens their rule and just make it disappear.
Re: Re:
Like a God….
Every dictator whats to be a God it seems like.
So, why do they keep claiming that these seizures are working?
Now why would they want facts to get in the way of a good sound bite?
Yep
They can claim “honestly” that they’ve been taking steps to combat piracy (or some such BS) and it’s only a lie of omission that the steps they’ve been taking are entirely ineffective.
The Big Lie Works
Bottom line: The Big Lie works. At least it works in the short term.
The danger of the Big Lie is that the liar begins to believe the lie, too.
Pi$$ing in the wind
When you’re pi$$ing into the wind it helps to tell yourself that you are not getting wet.
More DUH than OH
Corporate control say kill this thing, government lackies kill that thing, it’s killed… DUH. Nobody from the Harvard/Princeton/Yale department notes or cares about the details of what happens next – until they can ID the next thing to kill.
The hilarious thing thing about all this, is that the people that used those sites are probably savvy enough to find the addresses of the new sites.
No only has it not worked in stopping those sites but some other sites that felt they might become targeted next already switched domains in a proactive step, like from .net to .me.
Great job, ICE.
Re: Re:
Yeah, almost all the trackers I used moved after the first round. Early on, I was predicting an swift end to .com in general (after all, ANYONE can have their site seized just because someone tells ICE to do it). I still think that’s plausible. The public is savvy enough now to know there’s more than just .com.
As long as the general public keeps believing the lies, the politicians will keep telling them.
Would it not then be fair to say that the refrain “censorship and no due process” is almost completely undercut by real world events because the seizures of the domain names were apparently little more than a bump in the road representing merely a cost of doing business?
It could be argued that the facility by which off-shore companies can do an end-around US law lends support for legislation such of COICA?
Re: Re:
Let’s say the police are beating people because a “friend” of theirs’–who’s not in the government in any way–says these people need to be beaten. Let’s also say the police suck at beating people (in this example) and nobody is really injured, more like just annoyed or harassed.
Is it wrong? Should you be concerned?
Re: Re:
I don’t give a fuck about the effectiveness of the moves as they relate to IP. But, I deeply care about protecting the Constitution. Most people I know care about the Constitution. COICA is simply unconstitutional. There is nothing which, “lends support for legislation such of COICA?[sic]”, and I would warn you that espousing such support may cause some people to demonstrate what another part of the Constitution means. Namely, the 2nd amendment.
Re: Re:
So to protect Americans we need to take away all of their constitutional rights to do it, because other countries have different laws and rules?
Oh I see how that makes sense.
Re: Re: Re:
I am having great difficulty identifying the constitutional rights associated with persons who operate with relative impunity outside the borders of US jurisdiction.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There’s this funny little thing called Overreach. America has much bigger problems than chasing down some briber’s hackneyed attempts to stymie innovation.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No they instead have rights under their own laws that determine what is and isn’t legal for themselves as soverign nations. I know it may seem strange to a number of Americans (including its government it often seems) but the whole world is no more subject to American law than protected by its constitution.
“Because we say so and we’re AMERICAN!” is not a terribly compelling argument to implement an international agreement that tramples rough-shod over what other countries laws in favour of measures that primarily benefit American protectionism. That’s why you see COICA being negotiated around the world in a series of closed-room shady deals often accompanied by posturing, bullying and bribery.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
take out the word constitutional and you have what America is doing ignoring the rights of people who may be operating legally in their own country. Sooner or later they will be hit by one hell of a lawsuit for a legal site they took down. and i will dance on the ICE grave.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Misdirection?
Have you just claimed that COICA will be only directed at international players based in foregein soil?
Re: Re:
Would it not then be fair to say that the refrain “censorship and no due process” is almost completely undercut by real world events because the seizures of the domain names were apparently little more than a bump in the road representing merely a cost of doing business?
No, that would not be “fair.” As you well know, (you do, right?) prior restraint applies even in cases where the censored party still has other avenues to speak. The classic example, of course, is a tax on ink. Papers could still print, but it was still viewed as prior restraint.
That they can still get out there, after routing around the censorship does not mean the censorship did not take place.
As for the due process claim, this part has nothing to do with due process.
It could be argued that the facility by which off-shore companies can do an end-around US law lends support for legislation such of COICA
I don’t see how that’s true at all, since COICA does not change any of this. It just extends the existing situation.
Re: Re: Re:
The classic example, of course, is a tax on ink. Papers could still print, but it was still viewed as prior restraint.
Really? They could still print? LOL
What else did they print their newspapers with besides ink, Mike?
Why do you bother posting such silly bullsh*t? Do you really think your audience is stupid? That they don’t notice the blatant contradictions you’re so famous for?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You sure don’t seem to like studying history do you?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmmm. Could it be that you’re intentionally posting things so idiotic people feel compelled to waste time pointing out the obvious rather than discussing more productive things?
“So, why do they keep claiming that these seizures are working?”
If the MPAA tells the Movie Studios that everything they have done to combat piracy over the last 20 years has been totally ineffective. They could lose funding.
Also Monopolies are never good with money. They overspend and do not check to see if what they are doing is working.
Anonymous Coward is probably the douche who thinks this site and others will be shutdown because questioning whether something is constitutional or not means you’re pro-piracy.
Dude, you’re a bozo.