You comment might have had a wee bit relevance, but only if you ignore the fact that copyright enforcement has traditionally (at least prior to the last couple of decades or so) been civil actions between two private parties and had nothing whatsoever to do with law enforcement or the DOJ.
Law enforcement seizes things that are used for illegal activities all the time. Think about equipment used in meth labs, or copiers used to counterfit money, or entire buildings for example. This is no different than those other situations. If they are proved not guilty they will get the site back - notice I said "not guilty" the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
I understand that this article is about an UK site, but what you described doesn't really happen that way in the US. Law enforcement can use the in rem civil seizure processes to seize your property without ever filing criminal charges against anybody. It then falls to the property owner to prove their own property's innocence in order to have it returned. It basically has turned "innocent until proven guilty" on it's ear because property has no Constitutional rights. It's also become law enforcement's favorite type of fundraising too.
The excuses are typical of what you'll find with an industry that works on a collusion or gatekeeper system when it's finally faced with real competition.
Kind of like the car dealership atmosphere in and around the Motor City in the 80's and earlier. None of them were open weekends or evenings and if a small independent dealership tried opening on weekends they faced vandalism and thinly veiled threats of violence. The dealers claimed the misdeeds were from their employees who didn't want to work weekends, but I never bought that line, even back then.
United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea have all signed it.
Heh. The President of the United States signed it as an "executive agreement", which has not been ratified by Congress like an "international treaty" is supposed to be.
Many law professors believe that the The President lacks the authority to enter an agreement like this (even if it doesn't require changes in current law) because it would then bind Congress to current existing laws and not allow them the power to change them.
I'm not usually one to point out errors (I certainly make enough of my own) but following sentence is quoted twice in row from the EU Commissions pdf and it kind of confused me for a minute.
Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht has participated in three plenary debates, replied to several dozens of written and oral questions, as well to two Resolutions and one Declaration of the EP, whilst Commission services have provided several dedicated briefings to Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) during the negotiations.
This whole idea of scaring your customers into purchasing your product really seems stupid and not well thought out to me. Not only did this or the Tenenbaum case not even slow piracy one iota, they really did lose sales because they pissed off their customers who now vow to never buy another product from the labels, ever.
Nothing but freetards protesting that they will have to pay for things.
Keep on underestimating your true opponent. I have no problem with that.
What you are failing to realize (or perhaps you do realize and are really trying to marginalize it) is that the Internet populace actually does know what this is all about.
Bottom line, this is a power struggle for control of the greatest communication platform known to humankind. The internet citizens are starting to become aware of the magnitude of this threat and are starting to rise in a single voice to say "No. We will not cede control of the internet to anyone."
And yet now they do have all these new distribution and marketing models and they still choose to sign with labels.
I know asking you this is pointless, but, do you have some data to back that up with?
It's my understanding that a lot of artists are now DIY or signing limited distribution or marketing contracts with the labels while still retaining the copyrights to their work. Which isn't the same thing as the old sign over all your rights to get the advance which you then have to recoup contracts.
If I am wrong on this, please prove it to me.
Watching ignorant nerds try to demonize companies they know nothing about is most amusing.
While I may be a nerd, I don't believe I am ignorant. And I am not really trying to demonize anybody here, but after reading story after story about the labels screwing the artist over at every turn (and I have been reading those stories for many years before I even discovered Techdirt), one has to start believing there is some truth to it.