Court Dismisses Puerto 80 Rojadirecta Case (For Now)... But Doesn't Give Back The Domain

from the um,-what dept

As we're still discussing the mess from the Dajaz1 censorship, in the other big case involving domain censorship, we've got another troubling situation.

Yesterday was the latest hearing in the forfeiture case involving Rojadirecta (Puerto 80), and the end result was that -- believe it or not -- the case was dismissed (pdf). The ruling doesn't say much -- basically says the reasons were stated during the oral arguments, and there's no transcript yet. However, the basics are that it was dismissed on a technicality (over a failure to plead the willfulness, which is necessary for criminal infringement), and the government has 30 days to amend and refile its complaint -- which is quite likely. While having the case dismissed sounds like a big deal, this seems more like a temporary pause, rather than anything meaningful at this point (unlike the Dajaz1 situation).

But here's the weird thing: technically, because of the dismissal, there's no forfeiture case going on, and the seizure time period has long expired. So... um... why does the government still have the domains in question? There's no ongoing case, and even if the government intends to refile, it's hard to see how it has a right to hang onto the domains in the meantime. But... it is. It seems like both Dajaz1 and Puerto 80 should be celebrating the returns of their domains today, but only one is....

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), 8 Dec 2011 @ 9:39pm

    Re: Not your invented "domain censorship", but actual piracy.

    primafacie evidence is proof of nothing in a criminal action. If due process demands the return of the "keys" to the site they ought to be returned. Period, full stop. The law you claim to respect so much demands it. Even if you don't like it.

    As for your approval of censorship, that's becoming more and more apparent with each post you make. Nothing to do with your disagreements with Mike (or me or anyone else) everything to do with your statements and actions. As that or your approval of actions thousandths of an inch from tyranny can be excused by you provided it's in a cause you believe in.

    Should anyone be guilty of binary/black and white thinking, blue, it's you. Again convicted out of your own mouth,typing.

    That and, if necessary, I don't bite ankles should I attack. So far it hasn't been necessary because you're so easy to go after, same repeated argument over and over again, cut and pasted from RIAA and MPAA stats and releases, all of which have been completely debunked while you and they refuse to provide evidence for your own positions.

    You see the problem is this: You demand respect for copyright because it's the law. Fair enough. Decent position as far as it goes. Even moral and ehtical as far as it goes.
    Then you blow the whole thing when YOU don't respect the law when the law says that under due process an asset must be returned to an owner when the situation demands it such as this one. I understand that you don't like it but that doesn't excuse a government operating as if the divine right of kings still existed. It doesn't. That the sovereign power (government) has to obey the law as much as anyone else has been entrenched since Magna Charta doesn't seem to occur to you.
    The simple fact is that you can't have it both ways. If you want people to respect copyright by observing it, and many of us here do despite your opinion that we don't merely because we criticize it and how it's applied by some corporate entities. Then you must respect the law when it says due process requires something you don't like. It's really that simple.
    Even you should be able to understand that. Because if you don't you lose the moral and ethical high ground you claim.
    Unless you don't really care about that and care more about accusing people of being ankle-biters.
    All of which leaves the following possibilities:
    (1) You're a hypocrite
    (2) You're a liar
    (3) Your protests to the contrary you submit here by scripts provided by the MPAA or RIAA or both.
    (4) You're a shill for the entities named in (3) above [I'd demand a return of whatever it is you were paid if that's true]
    (5) you really are as totally clueless and ignorant as your posts paint you to be.
    (6) All of the above.
    A suggestion is in order no matter what. Please become familiar with how law is applied, how it functions and why it functions the way it does. This is the real world not some badly written TV show. Then become familiar with the evolution and practice of law in the English speaking world since Magna Charta (which marks the starting point in the legal system as we know it) both before and after 1776. Then become familiar with International Law as it applies to concepts like extraterritoriality and the illegality of that.
    Finally, please, please, please GROW UP.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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