My prediction is that one of two things is about to happen. One, Universal is about to roll out an "authenticate your website" program where for a price you can have the privileged of running their advertisements.
Or, they are about to say "Oops! We thought that list was the 'approved list' not the 'disapproved list'," and they'll promptly revert the list for the time being (ie: until the bad press dies down).
Trolls and AC's aside, it was in vogue for many states to implement a three tier system after the end of strict Prohibition. 1) Manufacturer 2) Distributor 3) Retailer
Generally speaking, only in limited circumstances can a those roles blur together. For example, micro-breweries that manufacture, and sell on site, are often (but not always) exempt from the three tier setup. Yes, in some states micro-breweries are required to ship their product to a distributor, get a Federal Tax Stamp, and have it shipped right back to them. As many have said, welcome to the Alcohol Laws in the US.
I make mention of the end of "Strict Prohibition" because in many ways Prohibition has not ended. The US Government did not make Alcohol legal in the same sense that it was legal before Prohibition. Instead, the restrictions on it were loosened, and it was made legal in certain circumstances. Very controlled, and heavily taxed circumstances.
All that being said, many states are considering removing the mandatory three tier system (of course the distributors are fighting this tooth and nail), as it is often viewed as a unnecessarily contrived setup who's functionality has come to pass. (sarcasm) It's nice to know that Wisconsin is stepping up to the early 20th century. (/sarcasm)
And if you think the brewing of beer is bad, you should see the laws surrounding the distillation of liquor.
Something I don't understand, is why someone hasn't brought a lawsuit against anybody who's name is very obviously associated with the seizures. I understand that the parties that are currently associated with the actions, might not be the government entity initiating the action. However, if you sue one entity I would think that their "defense" would be "it's not us, we're just doing this on behalf of so-and-so." THEN you they could go after the "real" department initiating things.
The arguments I've heard so far about them not being able to bring legal action because they "don't know who they're suing," doesn't seem to hold water. Someone's name is on these documents, pick a name and start filing action.
Obviously I'm not a lawyer (and I honestly would love someone with a legal background to explain this to me), but from how I understand the law, the system was setup to prohibit prosecutors from bringing action you couldn't fight. Several of these domains affected have large amounts of $$ and lawyers ready to do it. Why are they just sitting around hoping for the justice department to "allow them" to fight the seizures?
I have to wonder if it will come down to suing VeriSign for illegally reassigning the domains from their appropriate owners to the US Government. That would put pressure on VeriSign to put pressure on ICE to produce the authoritative party for the seizures, would it not?
Suing VeriSign would be a civil lawsuit, thus possibly open to a class action status by all of the effected domain holders.
No I don't think VeriSign is guilty here. They just did what the court ordered them to do. However, they could be used as leverage to get to the real heart of the matter.
It is not at all clear if Mozilla could be held legally liable for its extension, but it is clear that as a group located within the US it is generally not a good idea to get "cutesy" with the DHS and the DOJ.
Mike, et al.,
I think what the AC is referring to here is the likelihood that DHS is seriously wondering if they could get away with "seizing" mozilla.org/com now that Mozilla has publicly pushed back against DHS. Asking questions privately, even though they didn't get a response, allows DHS to forget about it, and brush it under the rug. Making it public puts egg on DHS's collective face, and makes Mozilla a bigger target.
Is it right? NO
Does it change the threat to Mozilla? YES
Granted, making it public MIGHT make it harder for DHS to retaliate against Mozilla. And then again, it might not. So far DHS hasn't appeared to care about public opinion (or legal opinions for that matter) with this little game they are playing. Their egos might just feel they have to power to take down a major internet software company for allowing the circumvention of their highly questionable, yet still in their eyes "legal" seizures.
All in all, I wouldn't be surprised if mafiaafire.com is seized in the next round. It would make DHS look petty, and it appears (from text on the MAFIAAFire site) that not only is MAFIAAFire taunting DHS into doing it, but it looks like they have a backup site ready to go as well. So that seizure would be moot. Nevertheless, DHS still might do it because again, everything they've done so far they believe to be legal.
Part of me really wants to see DHS "seize" mozilla.org/com. That would be a big enough site, with a big enough budget to get this thing finished once and for all.
Doesn't Omega's argument nullify their standing to begin with? Omega is arguing that "first sale doctrine doesn't apply since the watches weren't manufactured under US Copyright Law." If that is so, than other parts of US Copyright Law don't apply either.
To put it another way, if part of the US Copyright Law doesn't apply, then wouldn't all parts of the US Copyright Law not apply? Thus, there's nothing stopping someone from manufacturing an exact duplicate.
(layman's view of law here)
After all, you can't pick and choose what parts of a law you want to follow. Either it applies, or it doesn't.
We ran into a problem with Sprint wireless redirecting all DNS traffic to their servers. So instead of blocking it, their servers were/are masquerading as the server you're trying to reach, and responding as such.
We figured this out when we were trying to setup dynamic DNS. Any updates going to the server (over port 53) were never making it to the server, yet the client was establishing a connection, to what ended up being the Sprint servers.