I would have to agree that the defendent's action in this specific case didn't seem to help them much.
I am arguing more against in rem civil forfeiture proceedings in general. Yes, I understand that in some situations seize first, ask questions later is needed, to preserve evidence or protect someone or something from further harm.
With domain name seizures, I just don't see the need. Why is it such a problem to notify both parties of the hearing? If the defendant doesn't show then a default judgement is awarded to the plaintiff. It's almost like the plaintiffs are worried about some sort of precedent being set against them, but if the case is strong enough, why worry?
And therein lies the rub: whose rights are more important? What is a judge to do in a case like this? Allow the alleged infringer to continually do harm to the complainant's business, or issue an order that would do harm to the alleged infringer's business?
That's where the problem lies, how can a judge, based on the evidence presented before him, make a fair ruling on only one side of the argument?
It all depends on the circumstances, and the judge has to handle each decision on a case-by-case basis. There is no bright-line rule that he can apply.
That is even a more compelling argument as to why the judge should have all affected parties present.
What makes you think that the judge did not undertake a balancing of the equities?
It's kinda of hard to balance the equities when not all entities are allowed to present their arguments.
The DOJ is not a party to this case, so I don't see how this is any bit similar to Rojadirecta's case.
Ok, fine. But, you argued above that the defendant using delaying tactics could harm the accuser, and in the Rojadirecta case the delaying tactics of the plaintiff is harming the defendant. It's not a one-way street.
What is clear is that the vast majority of the sites seized are operated by people / companies with no desire to fight for them legally, or have received legal advice that going through the process isn't going to help them.
Actually, that is not clear at all. Are you just making stuff up to justify things?
It was my understanding that a lot of the sites seized for copyright violations are fighting these seizures.
Bush stated at the time that this was the end to major combat operations in Iraq. While this statement did coincide with an end to the conventional phase of the war, Bush's assertion—and the sign itself—became controversial after guerrilla warfare in Iraq increased during the Iraqi insurgency. The vast majority of casualties, both military and civilian, have occurred since the speech.
Re: Yes, Mike, the Internet enables symbiotic infringement.
But whoever pays the freight and who collects money off infringing material is still logically at fault. -- And by the way, you keep relying on statute, where in common law and common sense, just because a crime is split up into parts doesn't make it legal.
Wait, if we are using common sense for a basis of this discussion, your first sentence doesn't pass the sniff test.
Yes, the one paying the freight might be liable, because they are legally responsible for the contents of the shipment. But, the part about "...who collects money off infringing material is still logically at fault." is crap. We don't hold USPS or Fedex or UPS liable because you shipped a kilo of coke to someone. And we certainly don't hold the independent contractor truck driver hauling your package for Fedex liable, even if they make money off of your illegal delivery.