US IP Czar Gets Companies To Cut Off Unlicensed Online Pharmacies
from the borderline... dept
Earlier this year, we noted that the US IP Czar, Victoria Espinel, had been making the rounds to ISPs, registrars, payment processors and others to get them to agree to voluntarily start shutting off certain "infringing" sites. Now we see the results of those talks. Espinel has announced that a variety of companies -- including Google, Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and Network Solutions -- have apparently agreed to effectively disappear and cut off certain websites. The focus, for now, is on "unlicensed web pharmacies," with the idea being that these companies will effectively kill off those sites:Together, the firms hope to tackle every link in the chain that keeps unlicensed pharmacies operating by stopping them showing up in search results, taking their websites offline, delisting the domains they use and stopping payments reaching them.Think COICA without COICA -- but just with government pressure on companies. Seeing Visa, Mastercard and Paypal on the list certainly isn't surprising, after those three already did the same thing in cutting off Wikileaks. However, it's a bit surprising to see Google agree to this (Update: Google says that it's only agreed to cut off advertising that violates its policies). If there's a trial and these sites are found guilty of violating the law, then I can see cutting them off -- but once again, it appears that this is the government trying to kill off websites, without a trial.
And, yes, it's for "unlicensed web pharmacies," and everyone plays up the spam and the fake (potentially dangerous) drugs. Those are a serious problem. But they also lump in the (quite common) grey market pharmacies as well -- which often allow people to get drugs from outside the country at much more affordable rates. Shutting down fake drug sellers is fine. Shutting down the grey market drug sellers is a bit of a bigger issue.
On top of that, given the recent ICE domain seizures and the whole COICA law -- both of which Espinel has spoken out in favor of -- it's not hard to see how the mandate behind this particular program is quite likely to grow well beyond "unauthorized web pharmacies" to other sites as well. In fact, MasterCard has apparently already agreed to cut off websites deemed "pirate" sites.
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: copyright, cut off, ip czar, isps, payment, pharmacies, victoria espinel
Companies: google, mastercard, network solutions, paypal, visa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Visa, Mastercard, et al are in a situation where they don't have to have a court judgement that something is illegal to stop processing for it. In fact, their agreements essentially are the reverse, merchants may be required to prove that their businesses are legit to obtain processing. Remember, processing is not a right.
What the US government is doing at this point is basically reminding these processing companies that they can be liable for being the purse for these illegal operations.
Bravo for the government waking up and working to take away the profits from scammers. It is amusing to see the pirates getting worried, after all, isn't file sharing suppose to be free, not a business model?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Soon you'll need a window in your stomach to see where yer goin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is not Mastercard providing the money, it is the person who bought the product. Mastercard should be no more responsible, and should be held no more liable, than the post office should be if someone illegally delivered illegal content via the mail. The government has no business telling Mastercard who they should or should not send money to without due process. The government shouldn't be allowed to effectively deprive someone of their work without due process. If the laws allow for this unacceptable circumvention of due process then the laws need to change. If the government is to prevent someone from getting paid, there must be due process, they can't just arbitrarily deny people of income and work without due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mastercard ends up in the same boat. They are "just collecting money", but they are not exempt from prosecution for knowingly doing so for an illegal operation.
Rather than taking the risks that come with finding out if the drug sales are legal or not, Mastercard chooses to cut them off and stop doing business with that sort of site.
There is no issue of due process. Mastercard is making an informed decision as a company that covers their legal ass, nothing more, and nothing less.
The pill sellers can keep selling pills. They just can't get paid so easily anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Should Western Union be arrested for drug dealing? Should FedEx? No, hell no, and I'll say it again, hell no. Out of four parties involved, two did something illegal. This is no different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, Mastercard is. By their cardholder agreement, they require that the details of the site are checked, often that the website is reviewed in detail, and so on. The acquiring bank (the one doing the processing online) would have all of the referring URL information and such to spot check what they are processing for). Mastercard is not ignorant of what they are selling online, in fact, they are very strict.
There are plenty of IPSPs (third party billers) that have been blown off the internet by mastercard and visa for processing these sorts of things. We won't even discuss what happens if you try to backdoor them into accepting money from the US for gambling online. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"By their cardholder agreement, they require that the details of the site are checked, often that the website is reviewed in detail, and so on. "
One really huge problem with your argument. The local laws may allow legal pharma to be sold or shipped to other countries, to ship legal DVD's or CD's that cost less locally to other countries, to allow for the government to subsidize the product manufactured to be sold to other countries.
Banning these companies sales due to the need for political contributions, political ads, and the presidents next term is going to backfire. As these companies have resources of their own.
Personally I think its time for a hail mary play ... oh wait ... corporations can contribute as much as they want now ...
good on them :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
but it hasn't yet been determined, through due process, that such an operation is illegal. Mastercard shouldn't be held liable if they didn't know the operation was illegal, the people conducting the operation should be. Mastercard doesn't only transfer money for those conducting illegal activities, they do so for those conducting legal activities, and it shouldn't be their job to police who is and who isn't obeying the law. That's the governments job, and it's the governments job to try those breaking the law, and there should be no law that allows them to get Mastercard in trouble since they aren't in the business of delivering money to illegal dealers and so it's not their responsibility to ensure the legality of the transfer. Just like the post office shouldn't be liable for what gets delivered or the phone company shouldn't be liable for illegal activity done over the phone line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am going to point out one very simple thing. This is a trade agreement problem.
Now that ACTA has been watered down the gloves have come off. The IP enforcement Czar and justice are going nuts, confiscating domains, shutting down the credit lines, in an attempt to stop global competition from creeping into the US. It was previously done with N.A. over the border pharma.
ACTA seems to fail to meet the criteria set out at the beginning of the agreement to protect pharma, software, and content. Steps seem to be being taken to implement ACTA in an irrational way, violating several amendments of the constitution.
"We paid you" is probably the line motivating them ...
Sucks being them ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Horrible analogy. Visa and MC are neither selling, buying, or delivering anything. They are enabling one person to exchange a good or service for money with another person without knowing or caring about the details of the transaction.
In your crack analogy, Visa would be the US Government itself, since it printed the money that allowed the crack to be sold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't sound like they're getting a trail, it sounds like they're getting systematically shut out of the market (partly as a result of government influence) with no trial to justify such governmental influence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly ... Its called panic. People and govt's are taking notice. ACTA is watered down due to pressure from rights groups and Anon type. Australia is rethinking IP. The DEA is a failed law in the UK because it is to late. The EU has a "trade agreement" about indian pharma. Pirate party (nuff said). France is having problems with Hadopi on purpose. It all adds up to panic on the IP side. Judges in the US are actually beginning to take notice of IP issues and request "Further" information.
In the end. I do personally believe. That a judge in the US will combine the sherman anti-trust act and the copyright clause in a judgement. Stating something along the lines of ...
"In the past the united states had several monopolies. Rail, Telephone, (insert more monoplies here). Each of these was broken up. Today we have a government whose only goal seems to be supporting monopolies.
This government was founded on the words "We the people". Today it is we the corporations that fund the elections..."
For those of you who have never read the copyright clause, or the sherman act ...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, it reads ...
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Sherman anti trust act
Go Judicial branch ... its what you are supposed to do!!
Okay, I'm on a horse again, not a milk crate :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Aside from the fact that this statement has nothing to do with the article or even what you said before it, you're assuming that "free" and "business model" are mutually exclusive but many companies have made a lot of money (even before the internet existed) by including "free" as a part of their business models.
And why would pirates be worried about this issue anyway? They rob ships on the sea and as far as I know, don't use Visa or Mastercard to bankroll their operations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So no, it is not only the pirates that are worried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have been buying it from an offshore pharmacy that doesn't ask for a prescription (though she has one) and the price is 90% less. The drugs that came are from the UK, but are the same name brand she would get here. A big US drug manufacturer's UK subsidiary.
Now, all those legitimate pharmacies that are in places that do not enforce prescription requirements are being forced out of business, probably by BIG PHARMA.
We are going to have to pay $250 for a prescription we could get for $30. Made by the same company. Ridiculous.
The solution to all this would be for the US government to refuse to buy any medicines for VA/military/medicare/medicaid for any more than the lowest amount that same company sells for in other countries. Clearly those levels are profitable or they wouldn't sell there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is great for the FDA!
With all the pharma lawsuits filed in the past 10 years, there's obviously a quality control problem. Growth at the FDA will surely result in better clinical testing of pharmaceuticals before they come to market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This actually seems like a very serious anti-trust issue in the payment industry. Of course the government is far too corrupt to ever do anything about that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are also pharmacies that are in jurisdictions that do not require a prescription, so it's not illegal for them to sell to US buyers.
US Customs understands this and does not intercept drug shipments to individual buyers in the US.
These pharmacies sell US or European made legitimate drugs for much less than BIG PHARMA to people who need them.
Some powerful forces want them all gone, so everyone would have to buy from BIG PHARMA at inflated prices.
By lumping illegal viagra sellers with the legitimate operations the government is hurting those that are not doing anything wrong while trying vainly to control that which they will never be able to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't see any indication where the processors are stopping to process for legitimate pharmacies. Can you please point that out for us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I doubt that.
If the cost savings for medications for uninsured people in the US are very great through off-shore pharmacies, how long do you think it will be before people start using Western Union, or online money orders, or how about good old "checks in the mail".
If there is a will, there is a way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: and these pharmacies are critical for many with chronic illnesses
Pharmacology/Health Care: A prime example of America's finest capitalist ingenuity -- who else would have figured out how to get blood out of a stone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
U.S. insurance companies send people to other countries for medical treatment because even with all the expenses of traveling it is cheaper and if that is not a sign of a big problem I don't know what else is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Golden opportunity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you have ever heen on a bridge that was going to fail ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you have ever heen on a bridge that was going to fail ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
google checkout?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Executive
A neat way round the constitution is to have private companies do the Governments bidding neatly sidestepping both the legislature and judiciary.
The only way round this will be alternative currencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]