Dutch Anti-Piracy Group, With MPAA's Help, Able To Grab 29 US-Hosted Domains... With No Trial Or Notice

from the everyone-seize-domains-now dept

Wed, Dec 15th 2010 12:32pm — Mike Masnick

Now that the US government appears to be endorsing the idea of simply seizing domain names without notice to the proprietors of those domains, it appears that others are doing the same as well. TorrentFreak reports that the Dutch anti-piracy group, BREIN, with help from the MPAA, has been able to get 29 different domain names -- all hosted in the US -- to point to BREIN's homepage instead. The owners of those domains were apparently given no notice and no recourse. It sounds like most of the sites did not host any content but linked to potentially infringing content.

Whether or not you believe that simply linking to potentially infringing content should be against the law, we're seeing yet another example of the simple lack of due process and how this may impact other areas. If BREIN can get US domains shut down, what's to stop other countries from doing the same thing? China doesn't like reporting by an American site about China? What's to stop it from trying to "seize" that domain? Even if we grant the idea that many of these domains were engaged in or encouraging unauthorized copying of works covered by copyright, why should BREIN and the MPAA simply get to shut them down without any sort of trial?

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: brein, domains, netherlands, takedowns
Companies: brein, mpaa

98 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 12:37pm

I have to ask: Were the domains owned by dutch citizens or dutch companies? Were they just trying to dodge by hosting out of country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheStupidOne, 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:02pm
  
  Re:
  I have to ask does that matter? I'll argue that it only matters if the Dutch government talks to the US government to seize the domains, but last time I checked, BREIN isn't the Dutch government and the MPAA is not the US government.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    There is plenty of reason it would be important. If the sites are operated by dutch nationals, or have other ties to the country, it is a pretty easy deal.
    
    I do have to say that hdunited had at least one truly funny thing on their site:
    
    "Copyright � HD UNiT3D 2009-2010. All rights reserved."
    
    Now if that isn't lulz, what is?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 4:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    The American VP Mr. Biden would disagree with you.
    
    The MPAA and others RIAA are entrenched on the U.S. government.
    
    You will be hard pressed to not find a management position not occupied by ex-employees of that industry.
    
    Also there are the many famous figures elected and that are holding right now office inside the U.S. government.
    
    Not to mention bigger players like the BSA, Big pharma and cable/telcos that have great interest on the subject.
    
    The MPAA is the scape goat in this case, they will bear all the bad things this thrust for more control has but are not the only ones pulling the strings.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 15 Dec 2010 @ 12:44pm

Starting with the Patriot Act...
Starting with the Patriot Act, the government has learned that they no longer have to follow due process or adhere to the 4th amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:43pm
  
  Re: Starting with the Patriot Act...
  Neither of these agencies are the government in any way shape or form so what gave them the power to do this to begin with?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
I-Blz, 15 Dec 2010 @ 12:52pm

Aaaaaaaaaaarghhh...
I am tired of having my rights trampled on by our idiotic government!!! And now were meddling with other countries affairs!??!!? WTF!? I freakin' give up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re: Aaaaaaaaaaarghhh...
  lern2grammar.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:09pm

What's funny about this... Let them keep going. With the judges watching, it's just enough of a noose to hang themselves.

Of course, in the mean time, it's a HUGE pain...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:26pm

Easy solution: don't break the law.

It cracks me up to no end that you yo-yos think anybody is going to have sympathy for criminals that rip off artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Qritiqal (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:31pm
  
  Re:
  OMG, that was awesome! I haven't laughed that hard in years.
  
  Oh, wait, you were serious???
  Are you talking about RIAA ripping off the artists they claim to be "helping", or are you talking about fans who spend their hard-earned cash on the crap put out by RIAA clients and then happen to "file share" just a wee bit more?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You think the RIAA rips them off so you rip them off even more?
    
    You think music sucks yet you feel the need to download and play it?
    
    You continue to use long- discredited, hypocritical freetard-isms in debates and expect people to take you seriously?
    
    Gotcha
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Thank you for the cute irony.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      To be fair you use long discredited monopoly-isms, which is far worse.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You cannot have art without some form of unlawful copying but you can have art without any laws whatsoever.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Qritiqal (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 9:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, you haven't refuted my points.
      Also, I DON'T download or buy music that sucks, which really just means I don't buy or download anything from the major labels.
      
      You claim I use "long-discredited, hypocritical freetard-isms", yet the only one I used was that file-sharers actually spend MORE on average than non file-sharers (which has been proven). If you don't believe the proof, go bury your head in the sand some more.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 5:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      soon the COICA will pass thanks to fags like you, then will you be satisfied?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 2:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Gotcha
      
      Again, not by a longshot. But thanks for trying.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Haywood (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:35pm
  
  Re:
  It cracks me up the sense of entitlement artists have. How come I don't still get paid residuals for the gas I pumped at my part time job in high school?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It cracks me up the sense of entitlement artists have.
    
    it cracks me up how freetards think they are entitled to free music and think they can decide how someone else's art can be disseminated.
    
    How come I don't still get paid residuals for the gas I pumped at my part time job in high school?
    
    Because you're a talentless parasite? You tell us.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It cracks me up how you think that there is a natural right to a monopoly and that it's actually possible to practically enforce it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It cracks me up how you think that there is a natural right to a monopoly and think that it's actually possible to practically enforce it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous, 15 Dec 2010 @ 6:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You posted that twice and I still have no idea what imaginary monopoly you are talking about...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 7:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyrights and patents are government enforced monopolies. There is absolutely nothing imaginary about them. Would you would prefer that I consider them to be imaginary?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 7:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      OK. So the residuals for pumping gas don't impress you, but why not answer this question...
      
      I happen to be a surgeon. What I do really does save physical abilities, and yes, even lives. When I do something that has lasting benefit such as relieve an airway obstruction that prevented a person from breathing, or resect a malignant tumor, why am I not paid for that service every day of the rest of the patient's life. After all, the benefit from that service may continue for years and decades thereafter, and the added value of that service increases with every added day of life that person has. If the person would have otherwise died, did I not make it possible for that person to earn every single paycheck that person earns for the rest of his or her life?
      So why am I not paid a residual benefit or royalty indefinitely for every successful surgery? Is it just because I was too stupid to demand that kind of remuneration?
      ... Of course not. I'm not paid that way because IT'S NOT REASONABLE!!! I need to continue to work every day to get paid every day..
      It should be no different for an artist.
      
      And yes. I do find the sense of entitlement in the entertainment and media industries to be extremely galling.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 4:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are not paid a residual because each patient pays you massively for your abilities.
        
        When you start doing heart bypass surgeries for $1 per bypass (quadrapole bypasses on special, $3), then we can talk. Musicians and artists don't deliver a single finished product to one person (such as a life saving medical procedure), rather, they provide copies of their works to millions of fans on a distributed, time insensitive basis.
        
        Time is key. You don't have to be here right now to buy the recording. You can buy it tomorrow, you can buy it next year, or 20 years from now. You can enjoy it over the air, on internet radio, or perhaps as the soundtrack to a movie or TV show. You aren't obliged to a single performance at a single time with no way to carry it forward.
        
        A surgery is time sensitive. It happens now. It happens exclusively to you. For the time the doctor is working, he is 100% there for the patient. He gets paid accordingly. After that, the deal is done, and it ends. The next person who needs the doctor gets and exclusive performance, and pays for it accordingly, and so on.
        
        Two different market places, with very different rules of operation, dictated by what you are selling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 7:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Time is key. You don't have to be here right now to buy the recording. You can buy it tomorrow, you can buy it next year, or 20 years from now.
        
        Or one can wait the 100+ years for it to fall into the public domain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Killer_Tofu (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 8:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All of the pirating and alternative business models that plenty of artists are using show that the rules the major media groups think are the rules for their market place, are not, in fact, the actual rules of their marketplace.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 8:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > You are not paid a residual because each patient
        > pays you massively for your abilities.
        
        So a surgeon isn't entitled to royalties because of massive initial payment upfront?
        
        Okay, then I suppose we can dispense with royalties for all the movie actors and singers and songwriters that get paid massively upfront for what they do as well?
        
        Oh, no? Let me guess, that's "different".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Johnny, 16 Dec 2010 @ 10:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Uh OK, so if we go to a concert then the musicians have been paid upfront a very large amount for their work. Why should they be entitled to recurring payments for that paid work and a doctor not?
        
        If anything you can say that the work of the doctor is much more valuable to the recipient, often even allowing that person to continue earning a living, while music adds nothing to that person's abilities to make a living.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Alright, let's accept that the market for the doctor's services is not the same as the market for the artist's services.
        
        It is nonetheless correct to observe that what the doctor is complaining about is the abuse of perceived persisting or residual value. This concept is exactly what has been used to argue that copyright duration should be extended, and extended, and extended.
        It is most certainly what motivated the songwriter who complained to Commerce Secretary Locke that the song he wrote was not becoming the "golden parachute" he had envisioned.
        Further, the doctor's complaint certainly is an "apples to apples" comparison when it comes to the real estate scoundrels who are trying to establish a hidden residual royalty on home sales to be paid to the original developer or home designer each and every time the home is sold - indefinitely.
        
        The problem with songwriters, and artists in general who want their past work to be their "golden parachutes" is that they are using copyright law to allow themselves not to work as long or as hard as they would otherwise have done. Copyright should NOT motivate laziness. This is even more egregiously true in the case of the home designer who was already paid, and now seeks additional payment for the same work.
        
        If you want to keep getting paid, then keep working. - - - Copyright was never meant to be your "Golden Parachute"
        
        When copyright and patent laws are used to incentivize indolence, then they become a threat to our nation's ability to compete in the world market, for I assure you that for every person who is enjoying the benefits of intellectual property "protection" here, there is someone working very hard in other parts of the world where there happens to be less government enforcement of these monopolies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- keiichi969 (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:43pm
  
  Re:
  Because the other choice are corporations that rip off the artists 10X harder than piracy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yet another freetard lie.
    
    Over the past ten years piracy has completely dwarfed any example of shady record label activity.
    
    Besides, how would that excuse you or anyone else of ripping off musicians?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ccomp5950 (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't know about all that now.
      
      If you are using RIAA numbers and accounting (or hollywood accounting) and accepting the numbers they put out on the "costs of piracy" which have been debunked by government organizations (GAO), I could see your argument making sense.
      
      But for those of us that don't readily accept lies, damn lies, and statistics at face value, I'll go with the other way around.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The infringer has effectively already admitted owing at least $50 million and the full claim could exceed $6 billion. If the dollars don't shock, the target of the lawsuit undoubtedly will: The defendants in the case are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada, the four primary members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association."
      http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record-industry-faces-liability -over-infringement
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous, 15 Dec 2010 @ 3:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Shame on those Canadiens.
        
        Still a drop in the bucket compared to a decade of piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 3:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am in awe at your dedication to the art of trolling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Christopher Weigel (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Christopher Weigel (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      (Citation Needed)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 17 Dec 2010 @ 2:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Over the past ten years piracy has completely dwarfed any example of shady record label activity.
      
      Citation needed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:50pm
  
  Re:
  Ah yes, so because you assume they broke the law the people who owned the sites have their property stolen by organizations that are in no way, shape, or form associated with law enforcement and without a trial or warrant of any kind. Yes of course that's perfectly reasonable.
  
  Since you at one point in time probably drove over the speed limit and because I am president of the Anti-Speeding Organization I say you violated the laws so without trial nor evidence I am now taking your car. Remember if you don't wanna lose your car, don't break the law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    OIC, you're really concerned about the rights of people that the law believes to be acting illegally, but you don't gve a shit about how artists rights have been trampled for the past decade...
    
    You sound lke a hypocritical douchebag.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ccomp5950 (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      People aren't guilty until they are tried in a court of law.
      
      You obviously can't see the forest from the tree's.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous, 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wrong.
        
        People are guilty the moment they break the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Christopher Weigel (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In whose judgement?
        
        I can [b]say[/b] that you're breaking the law, at this moment, by harassing us. So, obviously, that means you're breaking it.
        
        That's why there's a such thing as a "trial" and a "presumption of innocence", you hypocritical prick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 15 Dec 2010 @ 3:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I didn't say you couldn't say it. People would laugh at you, but you could say it.
        
        Harassing the pirates. That's a good one.
        
        Anyway, you need to read what I wrote again. If someone breaks a law, they aren't innocent just because it hasn't been to a trial yet. The trial has zero impact on an event that has already occured. A trial could find a murderer innocent due to invalid jury instructions even though the murderer already admitted his guilt. Doesn't mean he still isn't guilty.
        
        A person is guilty the moment they break the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 3:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A person is guilty the moment they break the law.
        
        Where did you go to law school? You should demand your money back.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 4:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He went to Trolling U.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 15 Dec 2010 @ 6:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you should return to school and take a logic class.
        
        Here, I'll dumb it down for you:
        
        If a person murders someone, but is never caught, and never brought to trial, it doesn't mean he isn't still guilty of murdering someone.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 7:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "People are guilty the moment they break the law"
        
        Now prove it.
        
        Will you claim that someone killed another person and that is enough?
        
        If you think someone killed someone else that is enough to found him guilty?
        
        Of course you know it is not enough and to be found guilty by the law you must prove it first, if you can't show laws were broken there is no guilty in the eyes of the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Christopher Weigel (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 8:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, right, you're going with the whole "I'm a jackass" philosophy camp.
        
        The better question - If you think someone committed murder (but have no proof and have not subjected it to due process) is it ok to shoot them?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Johnny, 16 Dec 2010 @ 3:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's how it worked in the dark ages. Women got accused of being a witch, and automatically assumed to be guilty.
        
        Folks like you just long back to those good old days don't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 16 Dec 2010 @ 6:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Every person that responds to this and doesn't understand what I wrote is just making themselves look foolish.
        
        Certain logic skills are out of your grasp and that's no surprise at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And then realize that the crime is copyright infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Christopher Weigel (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Funny how you still haven't answered my question.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Christopher Weigel (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 3:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There's this concept called a "grey area". And you still don't quite seem to understand the idea of a Presumption of Innocence. As in, when a case falls in a grey area, you presume people innocent until such time as they're found guilty.
        
        Anyways, whether or not an individual is guilty, private organizations cannot and should not take the punishment thereof into their own hands. That's called "vigilantism" and (Gasp!) It's against the law.
        
        Also, for the record, I have not pirated anything. Nor will I ever. I've downloaded cracks for legally purchased, broken software. I do, however, believe in free speech and due process. Which, apparently, are concepts too difficult for your feeble mind to grasp.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ron Rezendes (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 4:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Witch hunt much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, man you must be in demand by police services the world over. Anyone who can establish guilt like that would surely be an asset to the team. Why don't you try out?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Greevar (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you stupid or are you just messing with us? The justice system in these United States follow the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". It is the burden of the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime you are charged of. Until the burden of proof has been met, you are considered innocent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greevar (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Belief is not sufficient reason to treat anyone like a criminal. Cursory examination and assumptions do not satisfy the rigors of due process. You want to talk about hypocrites? How about you? You seem to be okay with violating constitutional rights if it means protecting the rights of artists. That's hypocritical. You have a lot of nerve coming here, calling people thieves, and using that as justification to commit even more heinous crimes.
      
      Let's be real here. Since when has any artist ever been able to report provable financial losses due to file sharing? The truth is, the artists aren't hurting in this situation, the publishers are. These people use artists to produce an imaginary good that costs pennies to reproduce and rake in huge profits that almost never get into artists' hands. The publishers are the ones that lose control of content because of file sharing.
      
      So yes, let's piss all over the rights of the many so we can protect the rights and profits of the few.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Put copyright back to 15 years and we'll talk about fair.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 3:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ah yes of course, the rights of someone to demand their failing business be propped up are far more important than actual laws.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    More like suing the construction company that built the road for speeding taking place on it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 6:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So suing torrent site for file sharing is like suing road construction companies for not building the road in some way that does not allow speeding.
      
      Nice analogy. Let raid highway constructions.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:32pm

ARCARA v CLOUD!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:37pm

#5
"What's funny about this... Let them keep going. With the judges watching, it's just enough of a noose to hang themselves.

Of course, in the mean time, it's a HUGE pain..."

You mean like general Patton's assessment of the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge
"Hell, let's have the guts to let the bastards go all the way to Paris. Then, we'll really cut 'em off and chew 'em up."

Sorry, might be creeping towards Godwin here, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lostalaska (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:38pm

Legal Basis of this law?
Guess I'm gonna have to do some reading on this. I'm trying to figure out what legal basis they used to claim this was totally legal thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:48pm
  
  Re: Legal Basis of this law?
  "Guess I'm gonna have to do some reading on this. I'm trying to figure out what legal basis they used to claim this was totally legal thing to do."
  
  I asked the question ...
  
  "Does anyone know if these BRIEN domains were .com and other US TLDs?"
  
  The reason for the question is, trying to figure out if BREIN was assisted by the US ICE, homeSec, Justice, etc in these domain seizures. If so then it probably wasn't legal from a 1st amendment perspective no matter what country these seizures were done for.
  
  Transfering the domains to BREIN could probably be something else that is illegal by US law, international law, and might violate trade and IP agreements.
  
  Wouldn't it be funny if the rules and IP agreement that the IP types spent so much time setting were the things that brought them down, or brought them into a greater public light forcing reform.
  
  I'm on a Camel ... hand me that straw ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:42pm
    
    Re: Re: Legal Basis of this law?
    I'm on a cow.
    
    Have you ever considered that domains are merely a contractual fiction, which can be revoked for any number of reasons, or reassigned essentially at will, provided the terms of the contracts are followed?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 7:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Legal Basis of this law?
      "Have you ever considered that domains are merely a contractual fiction"
      
      I am going to use that ...
      
      Have you ever considered that COPYRIGHT is merely a contractual fiction.
      
      thanks
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701 (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal Basis of this law?
        > Have you ever considered that COPYRIGHT is
        > merely a contractual fiction.
        
        As much as it might be nice if it were, copyright is empowered by statute, not contract, so if it's any kind of fiction at all, it's a statutory fiction.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:38pm

This is getting really insteresting. OnSmash.com and Torrent-finder.com and 80 plus other websites get their Domain Name entries seized and redirected. Now BREIN grabs up another 29 domain names. With the error rates they seem to be having ~20-40 per 1,000 and the first amendment concerns. It is only a matter of time before they seriously screw up and this ends up infront of a court of law in the US.

Does anyone know if these BRIEN domains were .com and other US TLDs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
angal2 (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:43pm

So BREIN's website states that, "The BREIN foundation is the joint anti-piracy program of authors, artists and producers of music, film and interactive software..."

To me, that sounds as if BREIN is a non-governmental organization a la the MPAA, RIAA, etc. If so, wouldn't grabbing these 29 domains amount to out and out stealing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iamtheky (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:47pm

Dutch sites with American Hosting, according to the acting party

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2& amp;eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anti-piracy.nl%2Fnieuws%2Fbericht.asp%3Fnieu wsberichtid%3D249
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:55pm
  
  Re:
  Thanks
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 1:58pm

People easily forget it's treason to side with a foreign country over your own citizens. This is the kind of treason our founding fathers wrote the constitution to prevent, but sadly it is so easily ignored and trampled on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 8:30am
  
  Re:
  " it's treason to side with a foreign country over your own citizens."
  
  [citiation] ???
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 11:35am
  
  Re: Treason
  > People easily forget it's treason to side with a
  > foreign country over your own citizens.
  
  Not in the U.S. it isn't. I can't speak for what constitutes treason in other countries, but in America, the definition of treason is:
  
  Treason against the United States shall consist
  only in levying War against them, or in adhering to
  their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
  
  U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick Samuels, 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:13pm

Treason?
Give me a break. It will be a sad world we live in when ideas and intellectual property are no longer worth money. Like it or not, that's what gives people the time and incentive to keep the good one's coming. I applaud the government's efforts to keep the world from slipping into the second dark ages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ccomp5950 (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:21pm
  
  Re: Treason?
  And yet we somehow invented things before patents, and we wrote stories before copyright.
  
  Yes, obviously the only thing keeping creativity alive is monopoly on ideas or expressions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChrisB, 15 Dec 2010 @ 7:33pm
    
    Re: Re: Treason?
    Don't forget about the hours of NON-COMMERCIAL content uploaded to youtube every minute. With or without IP laws people will always have ideas and make new content. IP laws do not create ideas.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 4:37am
  
  Re: Treason?
  Bull and Shit.
  
  Second Dark Ages? Bit late for that one, bud. It started on the 9th Sept, 2001.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
drew (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:22pm

re: Easy solution: don't break the law.
"that the law believes to be acting illegally" key point right there. What someone believes isn't worth a gnat's arse. Have they been found guilty, in a court of law, of a crime? No? Well hell, i guess they must be innocent then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michial Thompson, 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:47pm

Domains aren't property, not even Intelectual Property
Guys,

No rights are being violated, nothing is being stolen, and nothing is being siezed...

Domain Names aren't Intelectual property or even physical property. ICANN't isn't a Government Agency, nor are any of the other companies that run the DNS systems...

You RENT the domain name, that is why there is a yearly fee, and if it's not paid you no longer have access to using it, and it goes up for sale to the highest bidder...

There are no 1st or 4th amendment rights being violated here, those rights are only applicatable when it comes to the Government, not provate industry, and if the ICANN't wants to reassign your domain, its well within their rights to do so.

Welcome to the flaws of the 21st century
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- drew (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 2:57pm
  
  Re: Domains aren't property, not even Intelectual Property
  Michial, presumably this is just a contract thing then? And i also assume that pretty much every domain agency is going to have a contract that reserves them the right to end the contract as and when they choose at no notice. Presumably in the form of a tick-here-to-confirm-you-have-read-and-understood-the-terms-and-conditions?
  Makes sense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re: Domains aren't property, not even Intelectual Property
  No, it's not property. It's a service and as long as the customer continues to pay the agreed fees and isn't proven guilty of a crime, they don't have the right to deny you services you paid for. No group or government has the right to take that away from you without due process. The fact remains that an act of censorship was committed without any reasonable proof that a crime was committed. If the government took away your home address and redirected it so that your paycheck was sent to the RIAA/MPAA because they believed that you were a criminal despite the lack of any proof, would you think it's okay for them to do that?
  
  The intent of the domain seizure was to censor the site and by doing so without proof of a crime nor due process is a violation of the first amendment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 4:07pm
    
    Re: Re: Domains aren't property, not even Intelectual Property
    "It's a service and as long as the customer continues to pay the agreed fees and isn't proven guilty of a crime, they don't have the right to deny you services you paid for"
    
    That is not correct at all. Contract law does not require that anyone is proven guilty. In fact, depending on the wording, the agreement can be terminated pretty much for any reason stated in the contract. It is all under contract law, not criminal law.
    
    Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean much in contract law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous, 16 Dec 2010 @ 6:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Domains aren't property, not even Intelectual Property
      Greevar got the facts wrong? How utterly shocking.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Greevar (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 7:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Domains aren't property, not even Intelectual Property
        Since when is one detail considered plural? I misspoke on one detail. I was referring to that some service contracts can be nullified if you are convicted of a crime. It is also true that a contract can be canceled if its terms are violated, but it doesn't mean that a contract can be broken on a whim. They paid money and both parties agreed on what terms they would be bound by. Unless that contract specifically says that service can be terminated at any time without notice nor reason, they can't simply take it away. As I said previously, the fact remains that censorship was committed without due process and that is simply unconstitutional.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 4:31pm
  
  Re: Domains aren't property, not even Intelectual Property
  Nevermind the fact that "IP" isn't actually property under US law.....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 7:06pm
  
  Re: Domains aren't property, not even Intelectual Property
  "No rights are being violated, nothing is being stolen, and nothing is being siezed..."
  
  Tell that to the US Department of Homeland Security, who proudly claim to have seized a number of domains on behalf of their corporate buddies.
  
  "There are no 1st or 4th amendment rights being violated here, those rights are only applicatable when it comes to the Government, not provate industry, and if the ICANN't wants to reassign your domain, its well within their rights to do so."
  
  When private industry action are performed at the behest of Government, constitutional rights are very much relevant. As for ICANN acting on its own behalf, you offer no proof for your claim that ICANN are "well within their rights" to "reassign your domain" just because they want to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 1:10am
  
  Re: Domains aren't property, not even Intelectual Property
  So, if Mike decided to remove your login and block your IP from posting here, you'd be OK with that? After all, posting here is not a right, but a privilege.
  
  You'd also be OK if the RIAA decided that michialthompson.com linked to infringing content and removed your domain name, right? Your 1st and 4th amendment rights wouldn't be removed if your blog disappeared from the internet...
  
  Wow.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 16 Dec 2010 @ 7:01am
    
    Re: Re: Domains aren't property, not even Intelectual Property
    If he'd done something nefarious, he probably wouldn't be surprised.
    
    You people need to read up on your law more and understand that most of the actions involved when committing a crime are not protected by any of the amendments you're trying to use.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 7:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Domains aren't property, not even Intelectual Property
      Like torture of a non-convicted man, where there has been no argument of confinement for their own safety?
      
      OR like the horrendous wilful ignorance of the RULE OF LAW. Of the sites that have been seized, 85% of them have been given the music for promotional purposes by RIAA members.
      
      IF that's infringing, then everyone should be barred from living.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan Diederich, 15 Dec 2010 @ 4:49pm

We forced their hand...
Of course BREIN has to circumvent the law..... what they are doing is illegal, and if due process was followed, then they never would have been able to have the websites taken down.

Its even worse that the URLs point right to BREINs site, as if they are some sort of government entity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2010 @ 6:48pm

Damn you Bono!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnny, 16 Dec 2010 @ 2:42am

Being Dutch
Being Dutch, I hate BREIN. They are the reason I don't buy any DVDs because you can't buy a legal DVD here without BREIN's annoying anti-piracy message that you can't skip. I get irritated just by hearing their annoying little tune.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2010 @ 5:41am

Time to keep your gun beside you cocked, and loaded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]