Talking About Homeland Security's Domain Seizures
from the priorities dept
We've had a bunch of posts this week about Homeland Security's seizure of domain names under questionable legal reasoning. Yesterday I went on The Alyona Show to discuss it. Here's the clip (though, I was actually in Sunnyvale, CA about 400 miles from Los Angeles, despite the claim that I'm in LA):Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: domain names, seizures
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe it's the angle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who's playing who?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Who's playing who?
I think the reason is that wikileaks uses a .org top-level domain which is not managed by a company on U.S. soil, i.e., they could not serve a seizure warrant on them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But, but, but...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I daresay nobody who purchases a $5 Rolex on a street corner in NYC is misled in the slightest. It seems to me it is a different matter when the seller is located behind an official looking website, most of which it seems are situated in countries such as China.
Of course, blogs and torrent sites raise a host of other issues, which I readily admit can include legitimate issues under the First Amendment. Blogs situated in the US certainly enjoy rights under the First Amendment. However, it does not necessarily follow that blogs situated outside the US enjoy similar rights since such rights are territorially limited.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is just too funny.
It's like "Free Ammunition Day" at the gun shop...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This is just too funny.
It's like "Free Ammunition Day" at the gun shop...
I wondered why the clock at the bottom left told the time in Moscow. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
She is right, I would pay for the good ones, the good ones being open source music the rest is just not worth it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Sure. Sue them, take them to court and have a trial. Then you can put them out of business. But seizing it first and never charging anyone with a crime where a trial can be had? You don't find that even the least bit troubling?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nice clip mate, fingers crossed some people listened!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm so disillusioned now.
/sadface
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Look at the general direction they have moved over the last 30 years - and compare with the US or Western Europe.
They still have a lot of problems - but, broadly, things are getting better.
Over here on the other hand I'm not so sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Homeschooled in Texas?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Importantly, it was determined beforehand that they were in fact selling counterfeits. Likewise, the authority to seize was cabined by the fact that before seizure US authorities had to present competent and relevant evidence to the court, and then secure the court's order.
Of course, the dynamics and procedures would have changed completely if any of these companies were physically present in the US. The principals would have been arrested, and the actual facilities padlocked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In a couple of the cases it seems more like a newspaper who printed a want ad of someone selling something illegal and they rushed in and seized the newspaper's printing presses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yup. Sure does give me the warm fuzzies just thinkin about it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Huh??? Determined beforehand they were guilty? Do you have a transcript of the case because I was not aware of any trial. It seemed we had a guilty until proven innocent seizure here. It has been pointed out here and other places that a couple of the sites were search engines that didn't host any content, and a couple of the other sites were hosting content that definitely included legitimate content (maybe some illegitimate content too).
DHS has overstepped their bounds by a great deal and trampled free speech in the process. I for one hope that people get fired and the courts get involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me ask you a practical question. How would you propose to handle sales by such companies into the US when they are beyond the reach of US authorities? People doing this in the US would be arrested and their sales/shipping facilities closed. These matters would then be addressed at a criminal trial. But what about companies where you are unable to arrest the individuals and close their facilities because they are located outside of the US? It seems to me that making it harder for such companies to ply their illicit trade in the US is a reasonable response.
It might help to put the shoe on the other foot. You are a purchaser of goods, you buy a product from one of these off-shore sites, and then when the product arrives you discover you have been duped. Yes, sometimes what these sites sell is so discounted that only an idiot would think they are getting an honest to goodness product. Unfortunately, it is not at all unusual for many of these sites to sell their counterfeits at a modest discount over what you would otherwise pay to a retailer here in the US. Even a cautious buyer can find himself in a position of having been screwed big time and having no effective recourse to cure what has happened.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Worst. Policy. Ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I hope the IP industries enjoy cold fish soup for breakfast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh come on. How often does either the merchant or the customer believe they're dealing with authentic goods?
Everyone except the trademark holder is perfectly happy with this arrangement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Morons in a hurry? Maybe. The rest not so much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]